Will Beback wrote:
WE can argue over how much of a positive
improvement there'd
be, but it's hard to argue that our articles are defaced by removing a
link that isn't a source.
It's not hard at all, Will.
If you'd like to see how easy it is, go propose that we remove all
external links that aren't sources. Or even just external links to sites
where the subjects of articles self-publish. Or forget proposing. Just
go do it.
You will find an ocean of people willing to tell you those links do
indeed belong in the articles.
And once you have discovered that they are all in the encyclopedia for
good encyclopedic reasons, then perhaps you'll have an easier time
accepting that we are not willing to compromise the encyclopedia's
content. Especially for something where even you admit the benefit is
arguable, and where some of us argue that there is harm, not benefit at all.
William
I'm not proposing removing all external links, I'm proposing removing a
small number of links.
I hope that you aren't saying that all external links provide value and
we should never remove any external link that a well-meaning editor (or
greedy website owner) adds. If we stopped deleting external links and
removed the spam blacklist I predict we'd have more links than text,
especially in some topics. We include a large variety of links because
they provide encyclopedic value. If we determine that they don't provide
that value then we delete them.
Will