charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote
The problem is that the link to the speculations
about SlimVirgin, seem simply added as an afterthought. Kinda of like spitting in soup
right before you serve it. The link really doesn't add anything to the discussion
about Google. I think the information could be found in a source that is not spoiled in
that way.
Slate's purposes are not Wikipedia's purposes. This we should bear in
mind, in discussing linking to any sites that are self-confessed journalism.
I'm going to come down on the side of saying that the Slate page as link wouldn't
be a great addition to an article on Google. It's not actually factual reporting, is
it? It would be a lazy source for an article, if not actually tainted. However this is a
long way from saying "don't link to Slate".
Very probably yes. The
other factor is where would we be linking from.
If there is no article from which someone would want to make the link
the entire question becomes hypothetical and thus moot. We basically
waste our time when we try to imagine situations where the link would be
suitable only for the sake of providing a platform for those who have an
pathological dislike of the link.
We should only need to consider the acceptability of such links when
they arise in a context as part of the normal course of editing.
Anything else is artificial.
Ec