Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment
This page documents an English Wikipedia consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
This page in a nutshell: Links that contain privacy violations or malicious harassment should be avoided. Links in articles are a matter for sound editorial judgement. |
In articles
On occasion, sites which are not normally given to attacks and harassment may, through lapse of judgement or an isolated dispute, publish problematic material. It is rarely necessary to remove such links, although deep links direct to the problematic material may well be refactored. Privacy violations are especially harmful.
Where an especially problematic link is encyclopedic content (e.g. in an article on someone whose notability includes harassing others), putting the link in plain text, e.g. <nowiki>http://www.unpleasant.example/</nowiki>, (rather than as a live link), or even just the domain name, e.g. unpleasant.example, is sometimes used as a workable compromise.
Discuss on the talk page; avoid edit-warring. Note removal of links on the talk page. Others will likely be working with the site to resolve issues. Always check discussion pages before adding or removing a potentially problematic link.
This can arguably be seen as problematic for
In debate
Wikipedia is a social space and works only because people from diverse backgrounds make a conscious effort to shelve their differences and work together. The
Linking to external harassment, attacks, or to sites which routinely engage in such attacks is usually inappropriate, and should be done only after careful thought has been given to the likely effect on the victim.
Wikipedia allows for concerns to be raised in good faith. If you have a concern, see if it can be stated without the need to link to external harassment. Evidence in the form of
In serious cases, e.g. of suspected administrator abuse, email the Arbitration Committee directly (arbcom-enwikimedia.org) rather than risk unproductive drama on the admin noticeboards.
Advocacy by
Links added by ban or block evading
Harassment on external websites
The best thing to do with harassment found on external websites is to ignore it. These kinds of behaviour are aimed at gathering attention, and when controversy, edit warring and interpersonal conflict erupts on Wikipedia as a result, the harassers often feel triumphant and motivated to continue. This can be understandably difficult if they try to troll people on the site with it.
Key guideline points
- No encyclopedic value – Do not add external links of no value to the encyclopedia.
- Sites that routinely harass – Wikipedia strongly discourages any links to web sites that routinely harass, due to potential of the material on the site, taken as a whole, to cause distress.
- Sites not routinely harassing – Web sites that do not routinely harass have in the past become engaged in an isolated or specific dispute with a Wikipedia editor. It is not normally necessary to remove such links. Removing links to the official website of an article subject due to side-effects of a single dispute is rarely necessary and may be unwise. Consider whether removal may draw more attention than calm discussion.
- Sourcing policy – Sourcing is important. If you feel the need to unlink a web page reliableanyway.
- Wikipedia is not a battleground – Do not engage in Dispute Resolution.Further options are detailed below.
- Good faith – Try not to fight over links added or removed in disruption.
- Err on the side of caution – If a link could violate this guideline, consider not adding it, or seek the advice of your peers on the talk page of the relevant article. Reflect on the value to an encyclopedia of any link.
Management of problem links
The usual model for addition of content is
Link assessment table
The following table may help in determining the suitability of external links in general:
Criteria | Reliability | Notability | Violation of privacy | Frequency | Intention |
Links to include | Highly reliable | Highly notable | Completely respectful of privacy | Isolated event | Good-faith critique |
↕ | ↕ | ↕ | ↕ | ↕ | |
Links to exclude | Unreliable | Non-notable | Extreme privacy violation | Systematic campaign | Deliberate harassment |
Relevant authorities | WP:SPS
|
WP:EL
|
WP:NPA
|
WP:CIVIL
|
WP:NPA
|
This table is not intended as a "point system", its aim is to act as a guide to your decision making in posting, or removing a link. In general, reliable sources should always be linked when needed for use as a source in an article. Websites maintained by notable people or groups should be linked in their article, per
If you feel you are being harassed
Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under its control, however if an external link which contains information violating your privacy or which calls for your malicious harassment is added to Wikipedia, you should bring this to the attention of Wikipedia administrators as soon as possible.
- The quickest way to do so is by explaining your situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; however, this is a highly public forum and you could inadvertently bring unwanted attention to the link by reporting your concern publicly on Wikipedia.
- A better option may be to directly email an administrator you trust, via the link on their user page. This ensures greater discretion. A list of administrators can be found here.
- A further option is to directly email the oversight members at requests for oversightwho can remove the links so they will not still appear in a page history.
A
See also
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
- Wikipedia:Civility
- Wikipedia:External links
- Wikipedia:Harassment
- Wikipedia:No personal attacks
- Wikipedia:Privacy
- Wikimedia:Privacy policy
- Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy
- Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
- Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion