Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites

Advice on deleting imdb refs

In a situation where imdb has been used a reference for items added to a list by genre, is it appropriate to just delete those items. Specifically, the List of zombie films, where we had a large discussion about criteria for additions some years back in which it was concluded that to be added, a reliable third party source had to refer to the film as a zombie film, or the subjects as zombies.

This was particularly necessary given that apparently some people hold strong OR personal views on what is and what isn't a zombie film (28 Days Later/Evil Dead for example) As I pointed out, only the assertions of WP:RS matter on the subject, so all the subjective arguments back and forth on the talk page were inappropriate.

Iirc we said at the time that imdb was not an appropriate source for this as genre/key words, were user edited etc, but unfortunately a large number of the current films on the list are only supported by imdb refs. This isn't just to confirm their existence I'd hasten to point out, but also that they are notable in the context of the list and also that they are specifically 'zombie films'. The list has been tagged since August 2009 for the refs not meeting reliability guidelines, but I've been hesitant to just remove all the films supported by imdb, due to both the shear bulk of them, and the fact that no doubt many should legitimately be on the list.

So I added a note re imdb, to the talk page, to hopefully encourage people to replace the refs with ones that meet the criteria some time ago. Though it would appear there was little interest in this.

Sooooooo anyway. Is there any problem with seeing it as the correct course of action at this point to delete all additions to the list merely supported by imdb?

Also if so, would if it would be appropriate, how would a template or note be added to the article explaining that additions should not only be supported by imdb.Number36 (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You should never remove appropriate and verifiable information just because a proper citation hasn't already been supplied. You may remove inappropriate citations, you may tag inappropriate citations (with {{verify credibility}}), and above all, you may WP:BOLDly supply the better citations, but you shouldn't destroy good information just because the citations are currently imperfect. WP:There is no deadline, not even for supplying ideal inline citations to a list of zombie movies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe we can call anything "good information" if it's not properly cited by a reliable source. Retaining uncertain, unverified claims just helps misinformation propagate on the 'net. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How uncertain are you about information like "Barack Obama is the President of the United States"? It's not cited here. Is that an "uncertain" claim?

What if it's information that you personally know is correct, due to your own education? If you type a fact into Wikipedia that you know you could easily source, are you "propagating misinformation" just because you didn't immediately add the citation (say, maybe because you don't have the source handy)?

This problem is why our policies actually require information to be capable of being verified, not already cited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

IMDb user-submitted content is reviewed

Why isn't this considered? I just had an IMDb reference deleted cursorily despite this fact. I find it highly unlikely that the reviewers simply allow all entries to pass without checking. Does anyone have something to add to this? __meco (talk) 09:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I've also noticed some have reservations on allowing IMDB being used as a source. My view on it is that since it is already used in several articles about TV episodes (examples; All Good Things..., Elogium and Q-Less) then I think that's precidence enough to permit it to be used as a reliable source. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nah. In All Good Things... article, I see that it is a link to a documentary of a show, so I made some tweaks to ensure that IMDb is not reliable without removing it. What do you think? --George Ho (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This is the link to what Meco refers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 16:53, July 1, 2012‎ (UTC)

Although I appreciate the support, I must reject it seeing that it's based on a flawed premise. We have clear rules and procedures for establishing what constitutes a reliable source. How a source is presently being used in other articles is not relevant to this process. If WP:RSN should find unreliable a source that is widely being used then that would mean removing it from wherever it was used (all conditions being equal). __meco (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

And just to give the latest of many examples of non-reviewed IMDb content, here's director Josh Schwartz confirming another one today in Newsday here:

As for Schwartz -- an executive producer of such fare as "The O.C.," "Gossip Girl" and "Chuck," making his directorial debut -- he isn't pretending to be a convenience-store clerk in this movie, no matter what the Internet claims. "No," he says, chuckling. "I get asked about it a lot, but that's an IMDb mistake. There are convenience-store clerks in the movie -- just none played by me!"

Come to think, IMDb still says David Schwimmer was in the movie Biloxi Blues, though per Schwimmer he was not. --Tenebrae (talk)

Although there might be errors, it is the job of the contributor as well as the editor to find out the accuracy of the information. The logic used here that suggests that because the person who experienced something is the contributor so it is ergo inaccurate indicates that Victoria's article about Josh Schwartz and Tenebrae's comment about David Schwimmer in Newsday are unreliable because they are direct quotes. If the person who lived the matter cannot attest to his or her life as in the Wikipedia policy on IMDB, then Schwartz and Schwimmer's comments noted by Victoria and Tenebrae are unreliable. TaramTaram (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment - IMDb is an Entertainment industry standard source of work information by a for profit company, Amazon. The paid staff checked information affects the lives and careers of thousands of actors and actresses as well as crew and other support staff. Why anyone would believe that Amazon would knowingly allow false information to be posted seems naive at best.

Are there errors in this massive database, of course. Some errors are more noticeable than others. The fact that this database has errors does not invalidate its it purpose, use, validity, or integrity. Furthermore, IMDB has no control over how its database is used. The only thing it can do as a company is work to insure that this data is as accurate as they can make it so as to continue to be a viable business entity. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

As someone with an IMDb entry, I can assure you that the fact-checking process there is not of a rigor sufficient for me to regard it as a reliable source. A lot of what goes in there, especially with regard to less-popular subjects, is simply not checked well (if at all). While somewhat more reliable than Amazon reviews and the like, I strongly discourage its unthinking use if anything solider is available. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Mike, as someone else with an entry, I can appreciate your anecdotal example, but I have found it to be quite the opposite. As has another User who commented here. Opinions are what brought us to this point and those same opinions are potentially preventing a credible source of information being used or at the very least, from being used properly. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Would be best not to misguide our editors when it comes to user generated content websites.Moxy (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, but how are you applying that broad and somewhat vague statement to IMDb.com? Are you claiming that the entire site is user generated? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You got it - to quote = Quite simply, a contributor is anyone who submits information for display on the site. There may be professionals there - but we have no clue who submitted what - are identities checked?. Changes are reviewed before they go on the site apparently - but who is checking this info and how are they doing so - are they checking for accuracy or just spelling and blatant vandalize? They also have a "Resume submission service", where people can post their own resume.....this is a grave concern when it comes to even simplest data like a birth-date. Basically if reliable published sources do not include the information that is at IMdb then that information should be questioned. If IMDB has some info and its reliable it should be found at a multitude of other locations (sources). It is however a great jumping of place for our editors. An entry like this is wonderful - but all this info can easily be-found in real publications by established authors. Would be best for our readers and Wikipedia's credibility if instead of linking (using) this site we link up and use real publication on the topics at hand - like Lawrence J. Quirk; William Schoell (2002). Joan Crawford: The Essential Biography. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-2254-0. .. -- Moxy (talk) 01:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Moxy, I wholeheartedly agree that if there is a source for a citation such a book or similar WP:RS that it should be used. But that is not the point we are discussing. I reject the claim that all of IMDb is unreliable as a source because of ignorance by WP editors as to how its operated. Rather than go on debating it, how do you suggest that we verify its credibility? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are the usual questions:

1. It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
2. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).
3. It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.
4. It is a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest.
5. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes.

It seems to me that the overall community viewpoint is approximately this:

1. Not so much, although it's probably better than it used to be.
2. Kind of, if you overlook things like the résumé service.
3. This item doesn't really apply, because you're trying to come up with a default answer for the whole.
4. Sort of, although that for-profit company presumably bought it because they thought it would drive sales of movies.
5. Maybe, although the "deciding" seems to be rather scripted, with as little human judgment as possible.

Your own answers may differ significantly, of course, but if you had this discussion on a third (fourth?) page, doesn't that sound approximately like the answers you'd expect to get? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Ancestry.Com?

Per an RSN discussion @ Ancestry.Com (along with the other 58+ times Ancestry.Com has come up on that Noticeboard before), what do people think about adding a section summarizing the general consensus about Ancestry.Com being used or not used as a reliable source? I was thinking something like one of the User-submitted contents sections...

Ancestry.com

• As an external link: * Sometimes. Using Ancestry.com as an external link can possibly be acceptable because of sourced information that is not available elsewhere, such as unique images, keeping in mind the first statement at WP:ELNO: "...one should generally avoid providing external links to: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."
• As a reliable source: N Rarely. Information at Ancestry.com is often poorly-sourced content from pseudonymous/anonymous contributors.
• Common issues:

1. The Ancestry.com website content is user-submitted and is therefore considered not to be generally reliable.
2. Ancestry.com does not exercise editorial control, material added to the site by volunteers does not have editorial oversight and is not vetted (see WP:QS).
3. Ancestry.com often contains asserted biographical details such as date of birth, but using the website as a standalone source for stated facts in biographies (especially biographies of living persons) is not satisfactory if reliable sources for this biographical data are unavailable to otherwise verify the alleged facts. Extreme care should be used when attempting to use it as a source for any biography, especially WP:BLPs.
4. Some editors think that if other published reliable sources cannot be found that verify asserted facts from Ancestry.com, then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include.
5. Even though some of Ancestry.com is free, much of its content is only available behind various levels of paywalls—see ELNO#6.

Looking for some feedback before possibly adding this to the article. Shearonink (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

All seems above board to me. Accurately distills the various debates and threads I've seen at WP:RSN. Heiro 06:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, except that point #3 is ambiguous: is it saying that using a DoB from ancestry.com is good or bad? Perhaps it should be recast to say that using ancestry as a RS for facts such as DoB for a BLP is not satisfactory—there would seldom be a reason to believe that ancestry should be regarded as a RS for biographical facts if no other RS is available. Johnuniq (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Have tweaked it, per the Feedback above. Barring any other input, I'll add it to the article within the next day or two. Shearonink (talk) 16:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

All a bit lite - As an external link should be set to rare * Rarely - The issue is not whether or not to trust ancestry.com, but how much you can rely on the type of primary records they have. What is not reliable is the information you may find on people's public family trees. You can't just take what you find from them and assume that it is correct. People, especially those who are not professional genealogists, can be sloppy or even dishonest. Should also remove "BUT... * Sometimes there is Reliably-sourced content written by a known authority on the subject and that is more likely to be accepted." - as this is simply wrong and leaves a horrible loophole ( not vetted information) - the proper wording for this type of editor generated site can be seen below.Moxy (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

- "editors believe that if reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found only at Ancestry.Com (e.g., exact dates of birth or death), then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include."

Well, that's why we're discussing it here before it possibly gets placed on the actual essay page, attempting to summarize the general editorial consensus regarding using "Ancestry.Com" as a source or even as an external link, especially as it is spread over the 58+ separate threads about it on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.

There are some professional geneaologists' articles or historians' articles on Ancestry.Com, that I think could be acceptable as an external link or even as a source, the material that should be considered as unreliable would be the family-trees & family-pages that are little more than written hearsay with little to no reliable referencing and are often just mirrored content from one tree or page to another. The problem with making a blanket statement like Rarely is that I just did a Wiki-Search for "ancestry.com" and found that it seems to appear at least 12,000+ times within WP's pages...so the general usage, I'm hoping as mostly External links, doesn't appear to be all that rare in practice. And, it should be kept in mind that "External links/Perennial websites" is not a policy or guideline, it is simply an essay and is to be regarded as a supplement to any pertinent policies or guidelines.

If Ancestry.Com is compared to the other user-submitted sites already mentioned in the essay, as an External link it is as least as similar to IMDb ("Yes") and to YouTube ("Sometimes") as it is to Find-a-Grave("Rarely")

"Sometimes" re:Reliable source should be changed to Rarely, so have tweaked that statement. Ancestry.Com/Rarely as an External link is not my understanding or experience of editorial consensus in this matter, I've always thought that "Note that the standards for WP:External links and WP:Reliable sources are different, so that a web page might be acceptable as an external link, but not as a reliable source" (from this very essay) made a lot of sense.Shearonink (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest going with what you have, with these edits: (a) Spell it "ancestry.com" (lowercase), or "Ancestry.com" (when at start of a sentence); (b) Change #5 so "some" is not underlined (no reason for that), and add "—see ELNO#6". Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - capitalization issues all fixed & added that #6 bit. Shearonink (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Overall I think this looks good, and I'm glad it was added. We can fine-tune any remaining details later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

LinkedIn (again)

I wondered why LinkedIn was unsuitable as an external link, as it doesn't currently say. Apparently it's due to WP:ELNO #6 : "Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content". But I don't believe that's the case. After all, we can cite The Times without issue, and that requires payment or registration. Whatever the reason, I think it needs to go in the essay as to why LinkedIn is unsuitable. What does everyone else think? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:EL (the guideline that ELNO is part of) only covers a site's use in the external links section, not as a citation. Citing paywall sources is fine per WP:PAYWALL but as external links they usually fail ELNO#6. January (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikia

What's the consensus on wikia sites? I'd think they would be "EL yes, RS no". Thoughts? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds right to this user. Specialized wikis, whatever the platform (wikia is only the most common), can give much more thorough discussions of a subject. (In some ways, I think these sites' lax requirements for well-sourced information is what enables this level of detail.) At any rate, it's wholly appropriate as a way to direct readers to in-universe discussions of fictional subjects, e.g. Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha. Wikia sites concerning non-fictional subjects might be a different story, though. Ibadibam (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

As a note on Wikia site, we should only redirect them to those sites if the site is well established. Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha are very well known, but a random site for a lesser known work that might only have a dozen contributors, we would not include even if it was the only wikia for that fictional work. --MASEM (t) 18:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

But where to draw a line? A while ago I saw an editor arguing that any wikia but those two are "too small" to link to (that was in the context of the Witcher wikia). I think that any wikia that has some relevant content is valid to link to; in particular if it is a wikia specializing in a given topic. For the Witcher example, I think all Witcher articles we have should link to the corresponding article on the Witcher wikia, and roughly, this should a standard practice. I.e., if a wikia about subject X exists, all our articles related to subject X should link to their corresponding articles on the said wikia, unless there's a consensus that said wikia for some reason breaches our other policies (through I cannot even think of when this could happen). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ELMAYBE doesn't use the number of authors as a factor in determining the relevance of an external link. A web page could have a single author and still qualify, so long as the source is knowledgeable (per point 4). So why does point 12 of WP:ELNO specifically call out open wikis as requiring "a substantial number of editors"? In my mind this has less to do with any requirement of scope or substance, and more to do with having a community that fights vandalism and ensures the project's credibility. If the wikia's editor base is keeping their pages patrolled, then that wikia is substantial enough for linking. Ibadibam (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ibadibam: I think that's a good observation. At the same time, I found vandalism on Wikia to be pretty rare. It seems that the site has an active anti-vandal anti-spam meta community, if not two. The site is also actively maintained from the technical/maintenance perspective. Two anti-vandalism extensions are used often on Wikia. ProtectSite.... The other extension is AbuseFilter]. There are also blacklists, including spam blacklists, and a number of tools to deal with spam ([1]). As such, I think that we can consider even small wikias well protected against those concerns. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)