Wikipedia:Convenience links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page. |
This essay discusses the advantages, disadvantages, and existing policies and guidelines regarding convenience links.
Contents |
[edit] Definition
There is currently a lack of consensus about what a "convenience link is, however, the term "convenience link" is typically used to indicate a link to a copy of a resource somewhere on the internet, offered in addition to a formal citation to the same resource in its original format. For example, an editor providing a citation to Adam Smith's famous work The Wealth of Nations might choose to include both a citation to a published copy of the work and a link to the work on the internet, as follows:
Smith, Adam [1776] (1904). ed. Edwin Cannan The Wealth of Nations, Fifth edition, London: Methuen and Co., available at Wikisource
In that example, the link to the copy of The Wealth of Nations available at Wikisource serves as a convenience to readers who may wish to read the work online rather than in its print form. The printed copy, however, is clearly identified for any user wishing to verify any statements supported by the citation.
The disagreement is the question of whether the editor adding the citation actually looked at the original source, or just at the convenience link. Some people may use the term "convenience link" to apply to both situations. Other editors may only consider it a "convenience link" if the editor adding the citation did indeed look at the original source. When the editor adding the citation did not look at the link, it may be called an intermediate or indirect source.
This dispute further leads into the question of whether "convenience links", whatever they are, may be used even if they do not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. If the online source would qualify as a reliable source in and of itself, it may cited by itself or together with the original as an intermediate source. (In this case, the citation should make it clear whether the editor looked at both sources, or just the intermediate source.) However, in other cases, such as documents reproduced on personal websites, editors frequently argue that a secondary link, even if not independently reliable, should be permitted as a "convenience" to readers, but only if an editor did indeed verify the information based on the original source. In this case, the citation should make it clear that an editor looked at the original source. However, the question whether the editor looked at the original source is not a black and white matter. For example, the editor may have looked at the original sources years ago and may use when editing Wikipedia only the convenience link without a detailed comparison of the convenience link and the original source.
[edit] Arguments in favor of convenience links
Convenience links have a number of things going for them.
- Particularly in the case of hard to find, but still verifiable sources, such as public court documents, local or older newspapers, or related information, a convenience link permits users to access the original information easily.
- In some cases, the original editor may only have read the "convenience link," rather than the original source. Explicitly identifying the link promotes honesty. (Note, however, that: (a) under such circumstances, editors are actually required to identify any "intermediate sources" upon which they relied, and (b) such intermediate sources must themselves be reliable. See here
- They can save editors a lot of money and time when they do not (again) have to find or buy or borrow the book or article
[edit] Arguments against convenience links
- Convenience links may not themselves be reliable. In many cases, editors link to self-published sites that would not meet verifiablity or reliable source requirements. Although the original source is identified and (must be) verifiable, it may be difficult to find, and the "convenience site" may be itself unreliable, particularly if it is strongly associated with a particular viewpoint. It remains a matter of dispute whether websites with copies of reliable sources are considered reliable unless there is proof or indication otherwise, or the opposite whether websites are considered unreliable unless proven not to be.
- Convenience links may be a form of advertising. If editors are using convenience links to direct traffic to a particular commercial, political, or other site, that may violate wikipedia guidelines regarding external links and/or "spam".
- Webpages with convenience links may contain partisan or POV comments on reputable sources. In cases the comments on the reputable sources cannot be distinguished from the reputable source itself then the webpage is probably unsuitable as a convenience link. But even if the comments can be clearly distinguished from the reputable sources then linking to the webpage may be considered inappropriate by contributors who disagree with the comments.
[edit] Existing policy and guidelines regarding convenience links
[edit] External links may not link to pages that violate copyright
The first relevant policy to convenience links is Wikipedia's copyright policy. Pursuant to the relevant section of that policy, editors may not link to material that may be a copyright violation without making a reasonable effort to ensure that the material is either published under license or is a fair use.
As a practical matter, this policy resolves many convenience link arguments. Where a convenience link leads to a republication of a newspaper, book, or other published material, the link should be removed unless there is good reason to believe that the material's publication does not violate copyright. (The original citation, however, can stay unless deficient for other reasons).
[edit] Citation guidelines
The guidelines that apply most directly to convenience links are Wikipedia's citation guidelines regarding "intermediate sources." Under the relevant section of that guideline:
- In cases where an editor reads only an "intermediate source" such as an on-line copy of a print publication, the editor should cite intermediate source, but may also mention the original source. In such a case, the intermediate source must itself be reliable.
- In cases where the editor reads the original source, he or she should cite to the original source, and may, but need not include a convenience link. In this case, the convenience link is not a source.
In either case, the format of the citation should make it clear which source was used as the source of information.
However, the guideline does not clarify whether, in the second case, the intermediate source or "convenience cite" must be reliable. Therefore, it is at least arguable that if an editor represents that she has compared the original source and convience cite and found the convenience cited material to be accurate, she may include a link to the convenience cite even if it would not itself satisfy the reliable source guideline.
[edit] External link guidelines
Technically, Wikipedia's guidelines regarding external links are not directly relevant to "convenience links," which are combined with citations and therefore occur in an article's body or reference section. Nevertheless, the guideline's sections relating to "links to be used occasionally" and "links normally to be avoided" may be instructive.
