Will Beback wrote:
I'm not proposing removing all external links,
I'm proposing removing a
small number of links.
I never suggested otherwise.
You said removing external links from articles was not a big deal. I
suggested you go try doing that with a bunch of articles. Just removing
ones like the link to the article subject's website. You will quickly
have a host of people willing to explain in detail why it is a big deal
-- right after they have reverted you.
Ergo, the links do have value.
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.
I can't tell if you really have the notion that I would suggest that.
If you don't, then it's a rhetorical device that tells me that we won't
make any more progress here. If you do, then I have obviously failed to
convey to you pretty much anything that matters to me. In which case I
also think future discussion is unlikely to be fruitful.
Sorry.
William
--
William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri