The other day I noticed an editor replacing multiple references to a website that has disappeared with {{fact}}, in different articles. The other day I noticed an editor removing a number of references to a website, with a "this site is gone" edit summary. The site has indeed left the building, so to speak, but I'm not sure what the rule is here.
Question for the panel: is it better to just leave the links as is (with a note that the site does not exist anymore), remove them altogether, or replace the links with archive.org links?
In these particular instances the links were replaced by {{fact}}, which is--to my mind--the worst of all options: it makes it look as if there never were proper sources for the statement, or actually worse: the "citation needed" make it look as if the statements are somehow controversial. Not to mention that they now run the risk of being deleted.
(The issue that made me think about this is clouded by the fact that the editor effectively removing the sources deems the originally referenced site untrustworthy, but that's beside the larger point, really.)
Michel Vuijlsteke
On 10/17/08, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
In these particular instances the links were replaced by {{fact}}, which is--to my mind--the worst of all options: it makes it look as if there never were proper sources for the statement, or actually worse: the "citation needed" make it look as if the statements are somehow controversial. Not to mention that they now run the risk of being deleted.
Well, creating backlogs is more fun than dealing with them.
I'd compare this to editors who replace all cited "off-line" sources (those without a url) by {{fact}}. I'm not sure whether this is stupidity or part of a larger deletionist black op.
—C.W.
If the original source was reliable, and can be found through archive.org or something similar, then the obviously best approach is to replace the broken link with one that works. If the value of the reference can't be determined, but the statement it was referencing is not controversial (i.e. Vermont is a state in the United States) then simply remove the reference, maybe with a note on the talkpage. If it is an "amazing claim" as Will states, then for once he's right - the dead and unverifiable reference leaves the claim unreferenced, and a {{fact}} tag is appropriate.
Nathan
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
If the original source was reliable, and can be found through archive.orgor something similar, then the obviously best approach is to replace the broken link with one that works. If the value of the reference can't be determined, but the statement it was referencing is not controversial (i.e. Vermont is a state in the United States) then simply remove the reference, maybe with a note on the talkpage. If it is an "amazing claim" as Will states, then for once he's right - the dead and unverifiable reference leaves the claim unreferenced, and a {{fact}} tag is appropriate.
Correct. Removing broken links without any effort to ascertain the availability of replacement sources - not even a simple search at archive.org or a quick Google - is if not irresponsible, certainly very lazy. If you have enough time to open the link you have enough time to look it up on archive.org.
Johnleemk
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
The other day I noticed an editor replacing multiple references to a
website
that has disappeared with {{fact}}, in different articles. The other day I noticed an editor removing a number of references to a website, with a "this site is gone" edit summary. The site has indeed left the building, so to speak, but I'm not sure what the rule is here.
Question for the panel: is it better to just leave the links as is (with a note that the site does not exist anymore), remove them altogether, or replace the links with archive.org links?
In these particular instances the links were replaced by {{fact}}, which is--to my mind--the worst of all options: it makes it look as if there
never
were proper sources for the statement, or actually worse: the "citation needed" make it look as if the statements are somehow controversial. Not
to
mention that they now run the risk of being deleted.
(The issue that made me think about this is clouded by the fact that the editor effectively removing the sources deems the originally referenced
site
untrustworthy, but that's beside the larger point, really.)
Michel Vuijlsteke
Removing citations due to broken links is bad practice and we even have a user warning about it: {{subst:uw-deadlink}}
Of course citations that are just a bare URL makes things harder to fix, that's why I like to use the {{linkrot}} template on articles without properly formatted citations.
-- Elias Friedman A.S., EMT-P ⚕ elipongo@gmail.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elipongo
On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Question for the panel: is it better to just leave the links as is (with a note that the site does not exist anymore), remove them altogether, or replace the links with archive.org links?
See WP:DEADREF; see also [[Wikipedia:Dead external links]].
Linking to an archiving service, marking the dead link with the {{dead link}} template, or even finding an alternative reference, are all preferable options to simply removing the reference.
Convenience links (links to online copies of offline material) are naturally a different kettle of fish; they are merely supplementary to the offline reference.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Question for the panel: is it better to just leave the links as is (with a note that the site does not exist anymore), remove them altogether, or replace the links with archive.org links?
IMO, the options are (in rough order of preference):
1. Find the referenced content elsewhere, e.g. archive.org (although that's not the only possibility in some cases) and fix the links. Sometimes it's simply that the site being referenced has moved stuff about. 2. Find another reference that works for the information referenced. 3. Leave the reference in place but note that the links appear dead. 4. Remove the information that the references supported which can no longer be verified, if you have doubts about its veracity.
I think that references should rarely if ever be removed; it removes the record of where the information came from, even if it is a bad source.
-Matt
Guilty as charged. http://tinyurl.com/ch3wdf
I searched archive.org, webcitation, and a few other (using the firefox "resurrect page" extension) for an archived version of the link. Found nothing so I removed the dead source and added a {{fact}} tag. On hindsite I should have tried a google news search.
Guilty as charged. http://tinyurl.com/ch3wdf
I searched archive.org, webcitation, and a few other (using the firefox "resurrect page" extension) for an archived version of the link. Found nothing so I removed the dead source and added a {{fact}} tag. On hindsite I should have tried a google news search.
Too late now, but you can archive the content of links likely to be ephemeral at:
http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php
Fred