Talk:Rutter Force

External link to Wikishire

User 10mmsocket removed the external link to Wikishire with the comment remove wikishire - this is a site that copies information from wikipedia without attribution. it has no place here, and anyway it fails WP:ELNO #1. I'm sorry, but I do not agree. Specifically:

• Whatever Wikishire may do in general, in this case they certainly did not create their article by copying ours. In fact I created our article by copying theirs (with attribution - see first change summary in the article's history). I obviously did this in my sandbox, and heavily massaged and further researched it to make it conform to our requirements before publishing it, but the fact that our article is a derivative work of theirs still stands (they publish under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Licence, so no licensing issues in doing this).

• The original Wikishire article is much more a piece of travel writing (eg. a lovely waterfall cascading over black rocks) than an encyclopaedia article. As it is inconceivable that words such as those I've just quoted would be found in one of our featured articles, I think it is clear that their article does provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became one of our featured articles. It is written in a different way for a different audience and therefore passes WP:ELNO #1.

• I originally learnt of the waterfall by seeing a rather impressive, but not openly licensed, photograph, assumed there would be a Wikipedia article, googled 'wiki rutter force' and discovered there was no Wikipedia article but there was a Wikishire article. If that had not existed, there would probably not be a Wikipedia article today. Given that, it seems rather curmudgeonly to deny them a link.

I have therefore reverted the removal. Regards. chris_j_wood (talk) 12:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Any copyright issues aside, it completely fails WP:ELNO #1 - how do you think it passes this single test? 10mmsocket (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading your reference wrong, ELNO#1 says Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.

I cannot imagine a Wikipedia featured article that talks about a lovely waterfall cascading over black rocks, or gives advice on where to park your car when visiting. On its home page, Wikishire aspires to be the place where you may find the best of Britain and Ireland. In other words, it is a different genre to Wikipedia, written for visitors from a travel writers perspective rather than the much more dispassionate tone that Wikipedia aspires to. That surely makes it a different resource to Wikipedia.

Incidentally, what copyright issues are you leaving aside. The Wikishire article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported Licence, and is attributed in the edit history. Are you suggesting that is not sufficient, or that the attribution should be elsewhere?. I did consider a cite, but Wikishire is clearly not citable for the very reason that it is a wiki. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree on the value of the page as a link here. I'm not going to remove it even though I think it is mostly worthless. As for copyright, Wikishire is know for its poor approach to copyright management. A great example is the Lockerbie Town Hall article there. It's a direct ripoff of the Wikipedia article with zero attribution from the author who put it there. I can see that you did exactly the right thing copying content from there to here, which is to be applauded, but it's hard to trust any of their content when they don't pay attention to where the article text came from in the first place. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)