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.
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.
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.
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.