Metabunk's Link Policy

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Posting source links to back up statements is a must on Metabunk. Statements made without a linked source, and especial statements that paraphrase a source, can be very misleading and will likely be deleted.

But while links are very important, they must be treated as additional references and not stand-alone content, so any content in the link that you refer to must also be in your post, quoted using "ex" tags.

If the information is visual, then screen grabs of relevant images must also be included in your comment.

A brief explanation for why you feel the quote you are quoting is relevant is also required.

The above also applies to video links. Timestamps (ie hour:minute:second), in text, are required also for
video links even if you "copy url at current time" in a video.

Do not paraphrase links unless you are commenting on something you have fully quoted in context.

Do not quote more than is necessary, the more focussed you are then more likely it is that someone will read what is there, and the more useful your post will be.

More details:

Links

The reader should not have to click on a link in order to understand what the post is about. When you link to something to back up something you are discussing then:
Links themselves are not content, they are references.

Videos

The reader should not have to watch the video in order to understand what is in it.
  • Describe what the video is about, explain how it is relevant.
  • Use time codes to precisely locate the relevant portions of the video (preferably wth the time encoded in a link).
  • Provide a transcript of any important speech or text in the video.
  • Use annotated screen grabs to convey the content.
  • If you can, create an animated looping GIF (under 2MB) of the most relevant part.

Attachments

Image attachments should be inserted into the post, not attached at the end where the reader has to click on them. Attachments such as PDF files should be treated as links, with an explanation of what the file contains, and if possible quote the relevant text and/or images.

Use common sense. The degree to which the above applies will vary with the context.




[Note: the link policy was formally known as the "no-click" policy, however people often interpreted that as a "no-links" policy. The renaming is intended to reinforce that links are very desirable, and often required]
 
Last edited:
Use screen grabs to convey the content.

This is one of the best bits of advice...and one that (embarrassingly) I am not yet good at.

I realize there are easily "Googled" apps, or other sorts of programs to assist this function. I won't post them here, but merely encourage others to 'search' as necessary.
 
This is one of the best bits of advice...and one that (embarrassingly) I am not yet good at.

I realize there are easily "Googled" apps, or other sorts of programs to assist this function. I won't post them here, but merely encourage others to 'search' as necessary.
don't forget the "How to" forum. some useful tips there on uploading images and EX tags etc.
(of course I always forget to check the How To ; )
https://www.metabunk.org/forums/how-to.42/
 
"Links them selves are not content, they are references."

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this, unless we're writing a professional paper for a university in which there are strict limitations. With some links that are not public property, all rights are reserved to the content creator, and to copy and use their content in a way that is against their wishes without permission, is a violation of the rights they hold.

Thus, in order to do so in a professional manner one should get permission from the content creator, such as a photograph, to use it in a manner that is outside of their original platform and context.

It's a sort of double standard to say that your posts containing links should be wrote in a professional university format, ie a reference, but then at the same time do it in an unprofessional manner by ignoring personal property rights and copyright.

Additionally, some pieces of evidence such as video evidence are motion based; they need to be analysed in motion and presented in motion in order to be most accurately described and presented for the sake of the argument. To make a gif just for the sake of convenience of not clicking on the link is ignoring everything in the above.

So to disagree, links absolutely are content, they belong to people, those people have rights, and often are best portrayed as the original creator intended. After all, this is how fact and evidence gets misconstrued in the first place, by misrepresenting a piece of evidence.

And for someone who is interested in officially debunking, they absolutely should check the facts them selves, that includes looking at all of the references, otherwise you're accepting a concept by simply glossing over everything that an individual poster has said.

I could create a gif and purposely omit every second frame, but per your rules you would be none the wiser, because as you said nobody should have to click on a link to understand the basis of a debunk.

But how do you know its even a debunk if you don't check the facts your self? If a link is not content then the original source material has no meaning, it's just there as a reference. Are you going to count every frame of a gif? Are you going to cross check it with the source material? Who here is an official fact checker?

-----

I'm not saying I'm going to ignore your rules as a member here, this is your forum and your format so it is what it is. But I definitely do not agree with that statement, nor believe that this is the most thurough way of presenting something which ultimately is supposed to be uncontestible evidence disproving real world arguments.
 
Last edited:
It's a sort of double standard to say that your posts containing links should be wrote in a professional university format, ie a reference, but then at the same time do it in an unprofessional manner by ignoring personal property rights and copyright.
That's why you should only use a relevant excerpt, as allowed under fair-use laws.

I've been doing this for ten years, I've only had maybe five requests in that time to take something down.

But how do you know its even a debunk if you don't check the facts your self? If a link is not content then the original source material has no meaning, it's just there as a reference.

Everyone is free to click on the link to read more, and to check your excerpt is valid. But the reality is that most people do not click on links, and even those that do do not want to read a long article just to find one piece of information. So to get the information across you have to excerpt it from the link and put it in your post.

Which of these is better?

A)
They don't think it was space junk, see: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ased-from-chilean_us_586d37bce4b014e7c72ee56b

B)

They don't think it was space junk, see:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...ased-from-chilean_us_586d37bce4b014e7c72ee56b

Astrophysicist Barrera explored the possibility of space junk re-entry - especially Russian - which somehow may have broken and released compressed gases at this low altitude. It was confirmed that no space debris entered the atmosphere on that date in that location, and in any case, such an object would have fallen rapidly and not flown horitzontally. Two independent experts on explosives told CEFAA staff that in such a scenario, the rounded vehicle would explode in the air due to the high internal pressure, and that the gas would catch fire in a flash. And any such re-entries would have been communicated to the Chilean government so that aircraft can be warned, as is the protocol.

Barrera also noted that when the first ejection event occurred, the material came out from two different parts of the object and then joined in space making one wake. The first was massive and dark in the IR (meaning very hot); the second lighter and semi-transparent.
Content from External Source
 
Additionally, some pieces of evidence such as video evidence are motion based; they need to be analysed in motion and presented in motion in order to be most accurately described and presented for the sake of the argument.

and that is fine. But you can't link a video and say "watch this 5 minute video, this guy debunks it."
You need to define what data he is using, a general outline of what he does with that data and the results of that data. and... "He debunked it" is not what I mean by the results of the data.
 
If I were to link a forum post that is available to the public and the poster is using their real name, would it be best practice to black out the real name of the poster in the image? Or do I leave it be since people could find the name of the poster if they clicked through to the link?
 
If I were to link a forum post that is available to the public and the poster is using their real name, would it be best practice to black out the real name of the poster in the image? Or do I leave it be since people could find the name of the poster if they clicked through to the link?
If it is on a public site there is no reason to block the name.
 
@Mendel and possibly others have raised this more than once, I would like to see it codified: Please do not use URL shorteners
Example of deirdre balking at tinyurl (for linkedin):
i dont click unknown links. if youre quoting Linked In, then link to Linked In

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/da...-statement-and-ig-complaint.12989/post-309629 is an example of me calling out someone linking a shortened URL to an archived version of a current page.

I vaguely recall some conversation about not "hiding" links, i.e. making it visible where links go.
 
Back
Top