Talk:Thomas Westendorf

Find a grave link

@Nikkimaria:, first of all, thanks for your edits.

• As to the parents, you're correct, the template documentation is clear on this point. I never read that part of it before today, but routinely observed other editors doing otherwise -- adding parents at will.
• As to Find a grave link, I beg to differ.
  • First, to understand if there is a consensus or not, a discussion has to occur. I think that the whole point of reaching a consensus is to discuss the matter rather than silently act (i.e. edit) back and forth, and then refer to WP:ELBURDEN. It's harder to arrive to consensus, if we start out this way.
  • So, I'll go ahead and lay out my views on the matter:
    1. To make it clear, neither myself, nor Wenard has any affiliation with this resource, so my decision to include the link is purely based on my perception of its encyclopedic value.
    2. Find a grave is certainly not a credible source by Wikipedia's standards. However, its entries are usually maintained by relatives of the deceased who often include links, clippings, photographs, etc. which can be independently used as resources for Wikipedia articles. For example, we find, if exists, Find a Grave entry particularly helpful in narrowing search windows for obituaries.
    3. One of the great values of Wikipedia (if not the greatest) is the organization of information which manifests itself in links (including list of further reading, wikifying, links to Wikidata, and relevant and non-promotional external links). In the context of such bio articles as this one, I think that Find a Grave link squarely falls into the latter category. It's part of this helpful web of links. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! With regards to ELBURDEN: currently we know that the link is disputed - you want to include it, I do not. ELBURDEN indicates that until a consensus exists to include it, it stays out. Further, the issue is not one solely of credibility: since the information provided there appears to have been copied from elsewhere with no evidence of permission from the author, WP:LINKVIO would indicate that the link should not be included. Finally, with regards to your last point, providing a collection of links is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Nikkimaria:).

• With regards to ELBURDEN, yes, I understand what it says. The point that I'm trying to make is more subtle. I think that overall, in the context of consensus, it's still better to lead with why certain changes/edits/reverts are made/proposed rather than with a declaration of opinion. For example, if people are at war, their insignia defines them, and this affiliation is generally unchangeable. We are not at war (at least I hope so :) ), so there always has to be a path to changing our opinions. It's a matter of interpretation, of course, and I could be wrong, but my perception is that when you lead with "you want to include it, I do not, hence ELBURDEN," you leave very little room for others with regards on how, or even whether your opinion can be modified at all. However, this point is already moot, I think, since we moved on to the discussion of the particulars, i.e. to the discussion of why, so it's all good now.
• I hear you with regards to WP:LINKVIO. I hesitate to act based on this alone for two reasons:
  1. Links to other popular resources which routinely violate copyright laws are permitted (e.g. YouTube).
  2. I don't think that Find a Grave is a serious violator of copyright laws. Yes, people sometimes post in there clippings and photographs that might be still under copyright, but generally they properly attribute them, and there is no evidence that such usage does not bother copyright holders. Outside Wikipedia, for example in scientific community, Fair use rules are more relaxed. Yes, a clipping of obituary or a photograph from a newspaper that was published after 1925, a long quote from another website are not PD, but arguably are examples of fair use which are so common all over the web. Moreover, unlike YouTube which is full with copyright violations, and these questionable videos are removed notoriously slowly (hence still boosting YouTube monetization), I don't see any evidence that anything like this is going on Find a Grave. In other words, this resource certainly doesn't seem to be either intentional or egregious copyright violator any more than many other similar websites.
• As to your last point, I have never suggested (nor my contributions support this in any way) that I believe that Wikipedia is such a collection. We still add external links for their value to articles, and I was simply placing this value in the context of overall value of Wikipedia. We are still discussing one single link, and I certainly do not intend to extend my argument to keep adding more and more links. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Whether a site generally presents an issue with regards to copyright is neither here nor there - my concern is that this specific link is problematic in this way, and so should not be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. This link? Only possible violation that I see in here is the long quote from Ancestry. However, I did some research earlier, and these companies (Ancestry and Find a Grave) are actually affiliated with each other, and have a reasonable copyright policy. Both points can be confirmed here. What am I missing? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 22:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Forum posts remain the property of the submitter, under that copyright policy. Plus in addition to the copyright issue, since this is pretty much solely a republication of a forum post... I'm not seeing the value-add here. We have sufficient information from other sources for things like locating obituaries. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hold on, I don't understand the copyright issue. What gives us the proper cause to "reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright," especially if this is all happening within the framework of the single umbrella company specifically created for people to track their ancestry and blog about it? Not only these companies may allow these cross-postings explicitly in their endless legalese (the website policies), but also fair use still applies. Can re-bloggings from Ancestry to Find a Grave possibly limit the monetization of the original blog-post :)? I think this is a non-issue.

As to your second point, the page still has information (i.e. the exact location of the grave) and the photographs (i.e. of the tombstone) that are unavailable anywhere else. Moreover, additions to the Find a Grave page can reasonably occur in the future. (And, as I mentioned above, this page was in fact helpful to me as I researched the subject.) 凰兰时罗 (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

And it could also reasonably be taken down - let's judge the page that exists rather than the one that might. Not seeing a fair-use argument in what's there, nor a uniqueness argument - it doesn't provide any more specific information than the cemetery name that is already cited, and images are available in other sources, eg here. You personally may have found it useful, but I credit your work in compiling enough information that others would not need to rely on a republished forum post by a random Ancestry user. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I do not understand why you're not seeing my fair-use argument. There is no copyright violation at the linked page to speak of and to involve WP:LINKVIO, and you haven't produced any evidence to the contrary. It's a non-issue, and frankly, I think once the weakness of this line of argument became apparent, the value of the linked page suddenly popped up into our discussion. I certainly agree that this value is relatively small. However, it is not zero, and yes, it may increase in the future, and this is why it's valuable to keep such resources linked per the third item of my first comment on this page. I think that this is an important principle which helps to structure knowledge. So, from my perspective, I'm facing an unsubstantiated push to decrease the value of the article, albeit by a small amount. However, enough is enough, and my efforts devoted to this argument have diminishing returns. If you are still unconvinced, you're welcome to remove the link. My only ask is that before you hurry to do that, please take a moment and answer the following question to yourself: are you 100% sure that you believe in your own argument, that it's in line with your true common sense, and that it's not a contrived attempt to justify your initial, rushed decision to remove it at any cost?

Whatever your decision is, I'll hold no grudge, as it's okay to disagree. Have a wonderful New Year! :) I'll go to write more articles, thus creating many many more links :) 凰兰时罗 (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)