Talk:Arbitration/Archives/2017
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Arbitration. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
External links
Justification for inclusion is not granted because an editor thinks including an external link is important. Each link must be specifically justified. From WP:EXTLINKS "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link". Why is it useful for our readers to link to the Scottish Arbitration Centre, for example?
Also from WP:EXTLINKS "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article". Unless justification for each one of the links is forthcoming they should be removed according to our guideline on the use of external links. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Shiftchange argued that the links were random. That is not true. Wiki has a positive mandate for global coverage and the links do an excellent job of that. The justification is that each link provides an important representative of an underrespresented part of the globe, which follows the wiki mandate. Shiftchange thinks Scotland is not important and should not be included and he deleted it. He also deleted the links to UK, China, India and Argentina. In my opinion those are major countries and give readers a wide view that is valuable to them and to wikipedia's mission. Rjensen (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- When you say "global coverage" I think you mean word-wide view. That policy or guideline is for article content, not external links. I am therefore not showing bias as suggested above. We must only include links that have a specific reason for inclusion. Our mandate is to provide knowledge, not to provide access to others who might be providing related information. These links do not belong, at all. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- World wide view is not enhanced by removing links to major countries. The guideline on EL deals with useless irrelevant links --we really do want to have links to important sites around the world. Erasing the links hurts users, helps no one, and does not follow any Wiki guideline. Instead the links we have follow wp:EL External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article.... the link should be directly related to the subject of the article Rjensen (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Why is it important? Simply saying you believe it is important is inadequate reasoning. Just like you are saying they are important, I am saying they are unimportant. You haven't provided a reason. This is your obligation. There is no merit in providing these links. We are not a repository of links. You need to tell me specifically why the link to the Scottish Arbitration Centre is warranted. If I wanted to know about arbitration I would come to this page, not a Scottish organisation's page. If this external link has good information it should be included in the article as a reference to support a statement. That is the way we do things here. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- World wide view is not enhanced by removing links to major countries. The guideline on EL deals with useless irrelevant links --we really do want to have links to important sites around the world. Erasing the links hurts users, helps no one, and does not follow any Wiki guideline. Instead the links we have follow wp:EL External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article.... the link should be directly related to the subject of the article Rjensen (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- When you say "global coverage" I think you mean word-wide view. That policy or guideline is for article content, not external links. I am therefore not showing bias as suggested above. We must only include links that have a specific reason for inclusion. Our mandate is to provide knowledge, not to provide access to others who might be providing related information. These links do not belong, at all. - Shiftchange (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)