joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:
I think that
external links to the subject's self-published sites don't
add anything beyond a link to the subject's self-published site, which
is usually the easiest thing to find about them. Omitting them in some
circumstances does not harm the articles greatly, and if it would have a
major impact in reducing harassment then the trade off would be
worthwhile. 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.
Wait, I'm confused. You said that "Omitting them in some circumstances
does not
harm the articles greatly" and said that "it's hard to argue that our
articles
are defaced by removing a link that isn't a source." I'm a bit confused. If
it
is harming our articles, isn't it defacing them?
We remove all kinds of links, sources, and text that, some folks argue,
help articles. For example, we remove links to resellers of recreational
vehicles, which doesn't harm the articles greatly much less deface them.
We remove links to websites that charge for access, we remove links to
most foreign language sites, etc. Each of those removals may remove some
value, but the articles are actually improved by making the remaining
material stand out more, free from the clutter of spam links, poor
sources, and fringe material. Just like pruning a fruit tree or a rose
bush can make it healthier, more productive, and more attractive.
Will