Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/Triumvirate
For the discussion of the RFC on the user of spreadingsantorum in the article.
- RFC - Talk:Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism#RfC_-_Should_spreadingsantorum.com_be_hyperlinked_within_the_article_body_and.2For_.22External_Links.22.3F
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Pre-discussion stuff
|
---|
|
TParis' take
The !votes in the discussion appear to roughly equate to 73% in support of the use of the link. Only 11 of the supporters provide a policy based rationale, some of the others used rationales such as "This is a no-brainer." Of the supporters who do provide policy based rationale, the largely quoted policies are
However, the argument is "How much harm will this link cause to a living person?" When reading
The argument about the NOFOLLOW link appears void on both sides of the argument. Those who say that NOFOLLOW is not a concern need to realize that although Wikipedia is NOFOLLOW, there are hundreds of sites that mirror Wikipedia that do not have a NOFOLLOW and their links will affect Google ranking. However, those who are worried about the mirrors need to realize that the website is already well ranked on Google search results without the help from Wikipedia.
The argument about
TC's take
As usual for these discussions, I begin by examining the numerical support for each side. A substantial majority (50 out of 68, or 73.5%) supports including the link (one sockpuppet of a banned user having been excluded). While numbers are not, by themselves, sufficient to determine consensus, the opposers' arguments must be significantly stronger than that of the supporters in order to overcome such a substantial majority.
In evaluating the strength of arguments, my task is to give weight to all reasonable interpretations of the applicable policies and guidelines, and not to favor my own preferred interpretation. While it is true that BLP, as a policy, prevails over guidelines in case of a conflict, the meaning of BLP, when the policy text is ambiguous, is subject to interpretation by community consensus. Readings inconsistent with the plain text of the policy and/or guidelines should, of course, be accorded little weight, but it is very possible for the same policy text to have multiple reasonable interpretations. The closer's task is to give weight to all those interpretations, and not to impose his own preferences.
Turning to the discussion here,
Many supporters cite
To the extent harm to Mr. Santorum has been discussed, I cannot say that the opposing side has the stronger argument. The website in question is already among the top Google search results for "santorum", and the subject of this article has been widely discussed in reliable sources; the harm caused by inclusion of the link cannot be said to be substantial.
The crucial issue here, then, is the tension between
In examining the text of the policy, it is important to note
Since the numbers clearly favor inclusion by a large margin, and the strength of arguments is, in my view, in equipoise and therefore insufficient to overcome the substantial numerical majority, my tentative conclusion is that there is consensus for the link to be included. T. Canens (talk) 02:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Xavexgoem's take
First, I should say this is my first triumvirate close. I apologize that my rationale is not as firmly thought-out as the others'.
I echo Tom Paris, who provides a much better summary than I would have come up with. I also want to point out the
I tend to agree with those !votes that say the article either include the link or be nominated for deletion, on the basis that (A) the article and the link are not on two different sides of some distinct line except in interpretations of the letter of
Given that line of thought, I agree with those arguments that putting anchors around www.spreadingsantorum.com is not any worse than leaving it bare. The consequence of the link is, in my interpretation, merely convenience. Therefore, I will defer to the general consensus that the links should be included.
]Proposed Close
The !votes in the discussion appear to roughly equate to 73% in support of the use of the link. Of the supporters, the largely quoted policy is
In evaluating the strength of arguments, our task is to give weight to all reasonable interpretations of the applicable policies and guidelines, and not to favor our own preferred interpretation. It is true that BLP policy prevails over the external links guideline in case of conflicts; however, the meaning of BLP, when the policy text is ambiguous, is subject to interpretation by community consensus. Readings inconsistent with the plain text of the policy and/or guidelines should, of course, be accorded little weight, but it is very possible for the same policy text to have multiple reasonable interpretations. The closer's task is to give weight to all those interpretations, and not to impose his own preferences.
We first address the weaker arguments:
- The NOFOLLOW argument appears to suffer from serious defects on both sides of the argument. Although Wikipedia's links are NOFOLLOW, there are hundreds of sites that mirror Wikipedia that do not put NOFOLLOW in their links, and that fact is properly taken into account in evaluating the harm caused by inclusion of the link. That said, the spreadingsantorum site is already highly ranked on Google without help from Wikipedia, and for the reasons discussed below, it is unlikely that the harm caused by inclusion of the link will be substantial.
- We do not agree that WP:NOTCENSOREDis a valid argument here, as it is not an obligation to provide certain information. Its purpose is to avoid removing information that may be construed as offensive or age-inappropriate.
- To the extent that some editors relied on WP:ELand therefore explicitly does not apply in cases of official websites under ELOFFICIAL.
- To the extent that some editors relied on WP:ELOFFICIALas a reason to include the link, the argument is defective because ELOFFICIAL is clearly phrased permissively. It allows, but does not mandate, the inclusion of official links. Assuming that a link otherwise complies with our policies and guidelines, whether it is to be included is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment.
A fundamental aspect of the BLP policy is that we should avoid doing harm to living people. In considering the question of harm, the argument is "How much harm will this link cause to a living person?" When reading
We note that there is a strong argument that the article should either include the link or be nominated for deletion, on the basis that (A) the article and the link are not on two different sides of some distinct line except in interpretations of the letter of
The other important issue in the discussion is the tension between
In examining the text of the policy, it is important to note
With the above considered, the arguments on both sides appear equal in strength. It is our opinion that there is more support for and that the consensus of the discussion favors providing a clickable external link as an official website of the subject of the article.
- ]
- T. Canens (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- v/r - TP 14:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
I basically merged our rationales and tweaked the words and provided a final summary paragraph. Any changes or copyedits? If you support the above, please note it below and add your signature to the paragraph above. If all three of us support, I'll add mine and move it to the RFC and close it. Feel free to copyedit directly.--v/r - TP 04:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I finished my own c/e's and then e/c'd with Xavexgoem...OK, let me see what I can do. T. Canens (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our argument largely centers around WP:HARM. There seems to be contradictory interpretations of WP:ELOFFICIAL, and I'm wondering how important they are vs. HARM to merit inclusion. HARM is the one we all agree on, and is more important anyway. ]
- I added a bunch more c/e's and rephrased some parts to hopefully dispel any appearance of we taking sides in the dispute. I think it's important to address the BLPEL part since to me it's one of the opposers' strongest arguments. I'm not sure what you are talking about w/r/t ELOFFICIAL. T. Canens (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, no, the combined interpretations read like two different opinions, the way they were placed. I take it back. ]
- So what do you think about the current version? T. Canens (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The rest is finicky ce's. Put my name on it. I do have some issues with our rather off-hand "no-brainer" remark, and wish it could be folded in a little more smartly. But it's minor, imho. ]
- "while others did not discuss any policy or guideline"? T. Canens (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I'm not sure that the "11" count is meaningful. The RfC started with two paragraphs outlining the position of both sides, so comments that don't cite a policy or guideline, or do not engage in extensive discussion, can probably be taken to indicate agreement with the discussion in the relevant opening paragraph, just like bare supports in RfA are taken to indicate agreement with the nomination. Under these circumstances, I don't think it's a great idea to split the supporters into "mentioned policy" and "not mentioned policy". T. Canens (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely. ]
- Actually, I'm not sure that the "11" count is meaningful. The RfC started with two paragraphs outlining the position of both sides, so comments that don't cite a policy or guideline, or do not engage in extensive discussion, can probably be taken to indicate agreement with the discussion in the relevant opening paragraph, just like bare supports in RfA are taken to indicate agreement with the nomination. Under these circumstances, I don't think it's a great idea to split the supporters into "mentioned policy" and "not mentioned policy". T. Canens (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "while others did not discuss any policy or guideline"? T. Canens (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The rest is finicky ce's. Put my name on it. I do have some issues with our rather off-hand "no-brainer" remark, and wish it could be folded in a little more smartly. But it's minor, imho. ]
- So what do you think about the current version? T. Canens (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, no, the combined interpretations read like two different opinions, the way they were placed. I take it back. ]
- I added a bunch more c/e's and rephrased some parts to hopefully dispel any appearance of we taking sides in the dispute. I think it's important to address the BLPEL part since to me it's one of the opposers' strongest arguments. I'm not sure what you are talking about w/r/t ELOFFICIAL. T. Canens (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.