Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites

This is a list of websites that editors frequently complain about on Wikipedia. Some of these are currently accepted, some are currently opposed, and some depend on the circumstances. Consensus can change.

Note that whether a source may be acceptable as an WP:External link but not as a WP:Reliable source, and vice versa.

Social networking websites

Twitter

See also: Template:Twitter

• As an external link: N Generally no. Exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other internet presence.
• As a reliable source: * Sometimes. A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source.
• Common issues: Twitter feeds change with every post, so the desirable information you see today may be replaced by irrelevancies tomorrow. Wikipedia is not a directory of any subject's complete web presence, and links to social networking sites are discouraged (ELNO #10). Be wary of fakes.

Facebook, MySpace

See also: Template:Facebook and Template:Myspace

• As an external link: N Generally no. Regular websites are strongly preferred, but exceptions are made for official links when the subject of the article has no other internet presence.
• As a reliable source: * Sometimes. The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source.
• Common issues: Wikipedia is not a directory of any subject's complete web presence, and links to social networking sites are discouraged (ELNO #10). Facebook particularly discouraged when seeing the page requires registration (ELNO #6). Facebook and MySpace pages (other than official links) could be characterized as fansites (ELNO #11). Be wary of fakes.

LinkedIn

See also: Template:LinkedIn

• As an external link: N Generally no.
• Common issues: Links to LinkedIn is discouraged because seeing the content requires registration (ELNO #6). Wikipedia is not a directory of any subject's complete web presence, and links to social networking sites are discouraged (ELNO #10). Information (e.g., phone numbers) is not typically encyclopedic in nature.

User-submitted contents

Find-a-Grave

See also: Template:Find a Grave

• As an external link: N Generally no. Rarely, a link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature, such as images and location information of graves, that is not available elsewhere.
• As a reliable source: N Almost never.
• Common issues: Find-a-Grave links may have been added to Wikipedia as part of an organized campaign to promote the website (ELNO #4). Some editors consider it a type of fansite that is not written by a recognized expert (ELNO #11). Some pages may contain copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK).
  If reliable published sources do not include the information that you have found only at Find-a-Grave (e.g., exact dates of birth or death), then that information is—by definition—not important enough to include. Find-a-Grave does not exercise editorial control, and the material added to the site by volunteers is not vetted (WP:QS). Should never be use as a reference if it contains information that is known to be a copyright violation, is a circular reference to Wikipedia, for images or for the information contained in the main body of the Find a Grave entry (WP:FORK and WP:CIRCULAR).

IMDb

See also: Template:IMDb name and Template:IMDb title

• As an external link: Y Generally yes.
• As a reliable source: N Generally no.
• Common issues: The IMDb website generally contains more information than the Wikipedia article, including information that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail.

YouTube

See also: Template:YouTube

• As an external link: * Sometimes. Videos from "official channels," like the United States' Naval History & Heritage Command, are more likely to be accepted than other links. Always label such links as requiring Flash video software.
• As a reliable source: * Sometimes. If the source would normally be considered reliable (e.g., a segment from a well-known television news show), then a copy of the source on YouTube is still considered reliable.
• Common issues: Videos must be carefully screened for copyright violations (WP:ELNEVER, WP:COPYLINK, WP:YT). Many readers (especially outside wealthy countries) are unable to view video. Videos often contain less information than alternative websites or the Wikipedia article itself (ELNO #1). Videos must be labeled with software requirements (Rich media). Editors enforce a particularly high standard for links to videos.
• General comment: Because the Commons and Metawiki have a 100MB limit on files some files are added to Youtube for use in Wikipedia that are gathered from United States government sources such as the National Archives by WikiProject FedFlix or other projects. These files can be used on Wikipedia articles if available.

Objectionable contents

Wikileaks

• As an external link: * 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.
• As a reliable source: * 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.
• Common issues: Editors allege that it is illegal (for anyone in the world; for Americans) to link to Wikileaks or that it is immoral to link to Wikileaks, because it will place people (soldiers, civilians, spies) in harms' way.