Forum:How should we deal with link rot?: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

Forum:How should we deal with link rot? (edit)

Revision as of 04:49, 1 September 2012

690 bytes added , 1 September 2012

no edit summary

Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator

85,404

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{forumheader|Panopticon}}
+{{archive|Panopticon archives}}[[Category:How to]]
 <!-- Please put your content under this line.  Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ -->
@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 :This is an interesting question.  I think it might be acceptable to link to the Wayback versions, but does that cross the line of linking to "official" web content since it's no longer hosted at BBC? &mdash; [[User:Rob T Firefly|Rob T Firefly]] - '''[[User talk:Rob T Firefly|&#916;]][[Special:Contributions/Rob T Firefly|&#8711;]]''' - 00:19, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
-::We '''don't''' have a policy on this, and as far as I can tell, it's never even been discussed on the forums before.  I guess people just weren't that bothered when Martha Jones' myspace blog disappeared. :)  My initial thought, however, is that it's not ''really'' our job to provide access to content that the BBC have intentionally removed.  The easiest solution in this case is probably the "morally correct" one.  If it were me, I'd just pull the links and forget about it.  But, like I said, we don't actually have a policy on links to material that no longer exists on the current revisions of pages.  So this is a chance for the community to formulate new policy.  Get to talkin' about it, people! {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">01:46: Tue&nbsp;11 Oct 2011&nbsp;</span>
+::We '''don't''' have a policy on this, and as far as I can tell, it's never even been discussed on the forums before.  I guess people just weren't that bothered when Martha Jones' myspace blog disappeared. :)  My initial thought, however, is that it's not ''really'' our job to provide access to content that the BBC have intentionally removed.  The easiest solution in this case is probably the "morally correct" one.  If it were me, I'd just pull the links and forget about it.  But, like I said, we don't actually have a policy on links to material that no longer exists on the current revisions of pages.  So this is a chance for the community to formulate new policy.  Get to talkin' about it, people! {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}01:46: Tue&nbsp;11 Oct 2011&nbsp;</span>
 :::After giving this some more thought I've concluded that you're probably right, and the easiest and least-potentially-troublesome thing to do would be to just pull the dead links.  We could mention in the article that there used to be a free ebook online at BBC but there isn't anymore.  We could still cite the [[WC]] as a source for anything which was exclusive to it, just as we currently cite other out-of-print items like Target and Virgin books, but it will be up to people to track down the web archives or whatever on their own. &mdash; [[User:Rob T Firefly|Rob T Firefly]] - '''[[User talk:Rob T Firefly|&#916;]][[Special:Contributions/Rob T Firefly|&#8711;]]''' - 21:05, October 11, 2011 (UTC)
@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 Suggested procedure: 1: Someone notices that a link has fallen into desuetude. 2: Notifies the wiki, either by posting it somewhere in the community (this one?) or alerting someone who knows what's going on (nominally an admin) who 3: arranges a check after a reasonable length of time, say a week, that  it isn't one of your usual site-going-down reasons and 4: links to the Wayback Machine. Of course, anyone familiar with the Wayback stuff will probably short-circuit this procedure and do the linking himself, but now we have a procedure.  Anyone wish to work out the forms to be filled in quintuplicate? [[User:Boblipton|Boblipton]] <sup>[[User talk:Boblipton|talk to me]]</sup> 12:18, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
 == Reviving ==
-In trying to archive this thread, I realised that this thread stalled before any resolution occurred.  This is an important issue that we probably should hash out to conclusion.  We do in fact need a policy about dealing with link rot.  For that reason, I'm tossing it back up tot he top of the list in the hopes of firming up some policy on the matter. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}&nbsp;<span style="{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}">13:59: Wed&nbsp;02 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
+In trying to archive this thread, I realised that this thread stalled before any resolution occurred.  This is an important issue that we probably should hash out to conclusion.  We do in fact need a policy about dealing with link rot.  For that reason, I'm tossing it back up tot he top of the list in the hopes of firming up some policy on the matter. {{user:CzechOut/Sig}}{{User:CzechOut/TimeFormat}}13:59: Wed&nbsp;02 May 2012&nbsp;</span>
+:For external links I say we should just remove the links, a text-only web addy can be provided in the Notes section of the page when noting information relating to the ebook version.
+:For citations I'd favour something similar to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Link rot|Wikipedia's policy with regard to link rot]].
+:For archive sites (like wayback machine etc) our [[Template:Cite web]] currently provides for adding an archived version when using the cite template. --[[User:Tangerineduel|Tangerineduel]] / '''[[User talk:Tangerineduel|talk]]''' 14:22, May 2, 2012 (UTC)
+::I agree with the tangerine. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <sup>[[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk to me]]</sup> 18:22, May 2, 2012 (UTC)