Quoting jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Nov 21, 2007 2:03 PM,
<joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Quoting jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Nov 21, 2007 1:31 PM, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21/11/2007, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 2007 1:02 PM, <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > doing so was the same. Crappy links are deleted for all sorts of
> > > > reasons, mostly because they're crappy, even if they would
also have
> > > > been deleted under that
strawman BADSITES policy.
>
> > > Except none of these were crappy links.
>
> > They looked like crappy links to me, but I could be wrong. Any
specifics?
The deletion of encyclopedic links to
nielsenhayden.com by Will Beback.
That old chestnut? It's the other strawman used as the rallying cry.
Will realized he made an error, and apologized profusely. The whole
issue was over long ago, but anti-BADSITES people bring it up again
and again and again, as that one incident has been extremely useful.
People misapply *real* policy every day, we don't then say OMG BAD
POLICY, IT MUST GO!!!!!
> > These were links that would have been
> > included in article space but for the fact that they contained
material we
> > didn't like.
> Err, "containing material we don't like" pretty much covers every
link
> ever deleted from Wikipedia.
... for other than encyclopedic reasons.
One man's encyclopedic reasons...
Jayjg, kindly make up your mind. Are you defending things like the
removal of
Making Light or not?
Please don't make the Fallacy of many questions. I've never defended
the removal of Making Light, as far as I can recall, so I don't know
what I would have to "make up my mind" about.
Well, you seem to be asserting that it is encyclopedic to remove links that
mention information or speculation about Wikipedians. That's precisely
what was
at issue with Making Lights.
At the top of
this post you assert that such things were
wrong, and at the bottom you seem to be arguing that removal of
otherwise good
external links is
"Otherwise good external links". Therein lies a whole universe of ambiguity.
No it really doesn't. Links that we would contain but for the fact that they
have information or speculation about Wikipedians. That's precisely what is at
issue.
ok and
moreover constitute an encyclopedic reason to remove
the links which is hard to understand given the serious NPOV violations
that it entails
"Serious NPOV violations?" Hardly. That's an argument I've seen
several times, and, frankly, it's specious. A link isn't a POV, much
less a *significant* one.
Of course links are POV or not. If we remove all links to a major critic or
proponent of something that's the height not NPPOV. And yes, that is a serious
breach of NPOV since many people use Wikipedia precisely to find out
where else
to look at things. And regardless, NPOV is not negotiable. A serious violation
is unacceptable as is a minor one.
and the fact
that these are links that but for the mention of
Wikipedians we would have in the articles.
Just because we would typically do something doesn't mean that we
*must* do so, even *should* do so in every single case. That's not
really an argument, and external links should be evaluated on their
overall merits.
No one is claiming that links shouldn't be evaluated on their merits. But our
personal feelings cannot effect what we do or do not put in article space. And
t to argue otherwise is exactly what has led to these repeated problems,
whether it be Making Lights, or
MichaelMoore.com or any.