Talk:Campaign for the neologism "santorum"/Triumvirate

For the discussion of the RFC on the user of spreadingsantorum in the article.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Pre-discussion stuff

I'm done typing up my tentative reading of the discussion. It is my understanding that TParis is done as well. T. Canens (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sure am. I'm ready to post/discuss whenever. Do we want to set a tentative date of an agree on the consensus if our readings don't match?--v/r - T P 19:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a deadline is necessary. I think we have enough clue to recognize when the discussion isn't progressing anymore and end the discussion. T. Canens (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to discuss whenever. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - two one is not a consensus - if three users are to close , you need to all agree - discuss it and interpret and all together agree to include or exclude - two one - is no consensus , closes under BLP considerations to exclude the link. Youreallycan 00:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant was, if we don't all initially agree, do we want to set a goal to try to come to a consensus of what the consensus was instead of drawing it out.--v/r - T P 00:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:ELOFFICIAL. The opposition is mainly focused on WP:BLPEL. However, the opposition makes a strong argument in WP:BLPEL that says websites that contradict the spirit of the WP:BLP policy should not be linked to. I note that WP:BLP is a policy and WP:ELOFFICIAL is a guideline. The BLP policy clearly overrules the external links guideline as written on the BLP policy itself. "Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail."

However, the argument is "How much harm will this link cause to a living person?" When reading WP:HARM, one has to answer several questions. The last two are of very little consequence in this case. 2) Is the information fact? Yes, it is the official website of the campaign. That is a fact. The content of the site does not change this. 3) Is the information given due weight in the article? Yes, a link to the official site would be appropriate weight. The most important question of WP:HARM in this case is question 1) Is the information widely known? I find when I do a google search on "Rick Santorum", the website in question appears as the fourth search result. This appears to be already widely known. So the URL appears to pass the WP:HARM test.

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 WP:NOTCENSORED is also not a valid argument here. Being not censored is not an obligation to provide certain information. Not censored's purpose is to avoid removing information for the sake of not being offensive or being age appropriate. In this case, there are significant WP:BLP concerns. Overall, the strongest argument appears to be the WP:HARM argument and consensus appears to support this. If the website were not already popular and used in news sources, it would be a violation of WP:BLP to include it. However, because the site is already widely known, it is acceptable to use it as an official link for this article.--v/r - T P 02:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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, WP:ELOFFICIAL states that official links "are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking". As WP:ELBLP is under the "Links normally to be avoided" section, it poses no obstacle to the use of the link. To the extent that the opposers rely on WP:ELBLP and not WP:BLPEL, therefore, their argument is inconsistent with the plain text of the external links guideline and must be accorded little weight.

Many supporters cite WP:ELOFFICIAL as a reason to include the link. That argument is not entitled to much weight, since 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. That said, looking at the state of this discussion, it seems quite clear how that judgment would be exercised.

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 WP:BLPEL, and WP:ELOFFICIAL; supporters argue that the inclusion is permitted by ELOFFICIAL, while opposers argue that it is barred by BLPEL. WP:ELOFFICIAL permits the inclusion of official links, provided that they are consistent with WP:ELNEVER (i.e., not blacklisted, and not a copyright violation), while WP:BLPEL states that "in general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy". (Another part deals with links that violate WP:EL. For the reasons discussed above, I believe that arguments to exclude the link based on that guideline are inconsistent with its plain language and entitled to little weight.) The supporters point out, however, that we routinely links to official websites, such as Westboro Baptist Church or Stormfront (website), even though they unquestionably "contradict the spirit of WP:BLP".

In examining the text of the policy, it is important to note WP:BLPEL qualified its prohibition with the words "in general". If the prohibition were absolute, this would be a much more clear-cut case of a policy prevailing over a contradictory guideline, and the opposers' argument would likely carry the day. However, the way BLPEL is worded permits a reading that allows for exceptions to its general prohibition on sites that contradict the spirit of BLP. Our linking to official websites that are plainly nowhere near BLP-compliant on other articles tends to support this reading. This then boils down to the question whether the policy does indeed allow for such an exception, and whether Savage's website should be one of the exceptions to this policy. The arguments for both sides, viewed in this light, are reasonably balanced; both sides have made reasonable arguments grounded on reasonable, although different, interpretations of the policy. It is not in my position to favor one side over the other. Overall, I believe that the balance of the strength of arguments is roughly in equipoise.

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 m:NOFOLLOW rule we have on our external links. It's a minor point as it stands, but this would certainly be a case of WP:HARM were the rule not there.

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 WP:BLP (where it is quite clear), and (B) the article and its internal links could be used to provide instruction on how to promote the website on Google page-rank, which is arguably more harmful but is an inevitable consequence of the project.

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. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:NOTCENSORED, as is the WP:ELOFFICIAL guideline. The opposition is mainly focused on WP:BLP, including WP:BLPEL, which says that websites that contradict the spirit of the WP:BLP policy should not be linked to.

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:NOTCENSORED is 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:ELBLP and not WP:BLPEL, it should be noted that WP:ELBLP is in the "Links normally to be avoided" section of WP:EL and therefore explicitly does not apply in cases of official websites under ELOFFICIAL.
To the extent that some editors relied on WP:ELOFFICIAL as 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 WP:HARM, one has to answer three questions. The last two are of very little consequence in this case. 2. Is the information fact? Yes, it is the official website of the campaign. That is a fact. The content of the site does not change this. 3. Is the information given due weight in the article? Yes, a link to the official site would be appropriate weight. 1. Is the information widely known? is the important question in this case. In a Google search on "Rick Santorum", the website in question appears as the fourth search result. This appears to be already widely known. So the URL appears to pass the WP:HARM test.

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 WP:BLP (where it is quite clear), and (B) the article and its internal links could be used to provide instruction on how to promote the website on Google page-rank, which is arguably more harmful but is an inevitable consequence of the project. Given the considerations in this and the preceding paragraph, we think that the supporters reasonably argued that putting anchors around www.spreadingsantorum.com is not any worse than leaving it bare, and that the consequence of the link is merely convenience.

The other important issue in the discussion is the tension between WP:BLPEL, and WP:ELOFFICIAL. Supporters argue that the inclusion is permitted by ELOFFICIAL, while opposers argue that it is barred by BLPEL. ELOFFICIAL permits the inclusion of official links, provided that they are consistent with WP:ELNEVER (i.e., not blacklisted, and not a copyright violation), while WP:BLPEL states that "in general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy". (Another part deals with links that violate WP:EL. For the reasons discussed above, we believe that arguments to exclude the link based on that guideline are inconsistent with its plain language and entitled to little weight.) The supporters point out, however, that we routinely link to official websites, such as Westboro Baptist Church or Stormfront (website), even though they unquestionably "contradict the spirit" of WP:BLP.

In examining the text of the policy, it is important to note WP:BLPEL qualified its prohibition with the words "in general". If the prohibition were absolute, this would be a much more clear-cut case of a policy prevailing over a contradictory guideline, and the opposers' argument would likely carry the day. However, the way BLPEL is worded permits a reading that allows for exceptions to its general prohibition on sites that contradict the spirit of BLP. Our linking to official websites that are plainly nowhere near BLP-compliant on other articles tends to support this reading. This then boils down to the question whether the policy does indeed allow for such an exception, and whether Savage's website should be one of the exceptions to this policy. The arguments for both sides, viewed in this light, are reasonably balanced; both sides have made reasonable arguments grounded on reasonable, although different, interpretations of the policy. It is not in our position to favor one side over the other.

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.

Xavexgoem (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
v/r - T P 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 - T P 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. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"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. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:53, 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.