 |
This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:External links page.
This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. |
| Common decisions and arguments |
|---|
| Deletion (XfD) |
| Arbitration (Arbcom) |
| Proposals and policy |
|
|
This is a list of websites that editors frequently discuss on Wikipedia. Some of these are currently accepted, some are currently opposed, and some depend on the circumstances as consensus can change.
Note that the standards for WP:External links and WP:Reliable sources are different, so that a web page might be acceptable as an external link, but not as a reliable source, or vice versa.
Also note that this page does not prescribe any recommendations of what action to take if one encounters any of these sites linked within articles. This list is only an aid to ongoing discussion surrounding the use of these sites, final consensus is yet to be determined.
N Generally no. Regular websites are strongly preferred, but exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other Web presence.
* Sometimes. The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources.)N Almost never.* Sometimes. LinkedIn pages may be used as self-published, primary sources, but only if they can be authenticated as belonging to the subject. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources.)N Generally no. Exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other Web presence; or is known for their Twitter activity.* Sometimes. A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source. Twitter's "Verified Account" mechanism currently identifies both notable figures and Twitter Blue subscribers, with some accounts also labeled as "Official"; this should be considered in judging the reliability of Twitter messages. An alternative for people known for their Twitter presence is to use reliable third-party sources for their Twitter handle. It can also help to listen to interviews with the article subject, especially podcasts, as subjects often "plug" their Twitter accounts at the beginning and/or end of such audio recordings.* Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere.N Generally no.* Rarely. Sometimes, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images of a grave.N Almost never because it is user-generated content. It should never be cited if it is a circular reference to Wikipedia (WP:FORK and WP:CIRCULAR).
Y Generally yes, if the subject of the entire page is exactly the same as the subject of the IMDb page that you're linking.N Almost never, though exceptions may be made for writing credits marked with "WGA" that are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America (where applicable).* Sometimes. Videos from "official channels", like the United States' Naval History & Heritage Command, are more likely to be accepted than other links.* Sometimes. If the source would normally be considered reliable (e.g., a segment from a well-known television news show, or an official video channel from a major publisher), then a copy of the source on YouTube is still considered reliable.N No. Especially when the petition is still open.* Sometimes. Generally, the only notable facts that a petition site is a reliable (albeit primary, self-published, and usually non-independent) source for are its existence, the petition wording, the start and end dates, and for the final outcome after the petition is closed. A notable petition will usually be reported on by an independent source, which will have the final outcome and may also have analysis of the results and its impact. Information about petitions should generally not be included without independent, secondary references showing notability of the petition.* Maybe. If WikiLeaks contains information that is directly relevant to the specific subject of the article, then editors may choose to provide a link. For example, if a particular page on WikiLeaks is discussed extensively in the article (and sourced correctly to reliable sources that are ideally third-party and independent), then editors may include an external link to that page.* Maybe. The documents on WikiLeaks are reliable primary sources for the fact that WikiLeaks contains or says certain things, but not necessarily for any claims that the documents' contents are true, correct, unfabricated, actually happened, etc.N Almost never.* Sometimes. This website is usually used for past or upcoming media release dates. Certain media such as printed works may have an "official website" that only links to Amazon as the distributor. User submitted reviews on Amazon are not considered reliable, and should not be used.* Sometimes. Using Ancestry.com as an external link can possibly be acceptable because of sourced information that is not available elsewhere, such as unique images, keeping in mind the first statement at WP:ELNO: "...one should generally avoid providing external links to: Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Note that much of its content is only available behind various levels of paywall—see ELNO#6.* Sometimes. Ancestry.com contains two types of material, which have separate considerations.N not reliable.N Almost never. Do not link to items for sale. Wikipedia isn't the place to promote whatever you are selling. Blog posts or similar pages might rarely be acceptable.* Maybe. eBay has been used by reliable sources for historical auction records. Editors should use common sense here by making sure that the auction is noteworthy before adding the source.
