Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:33:36 +0100 From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck? To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Matt Jacobs wrote:
Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but that they now have few actual rights.
Charles
And why should links have any particular "rights"? External links should
be
justified in the same way as any addition to the article. They may not require the same verifiability standards, but they should be judged to be
a
recommended place for further reading. In some way or another, they
should
add content the editors judge to be useful, and not simply be about the subject. Considering that for every good link I've seen inserted, I've
also
seen one that was useless or even misleading or libelous, why would they need any special protection?
The point would be no different from (say) unreferenced content: there the distinction between "may be removed" and "must be removed" is quite important. And there is the "right", not of the link but the editor adding it, to have "good faith assumed": other things being equal, assume that the link was added to help develop the encyclopedia. The onus is not always on the editor adding to an article to "justify" additions: that is a very unwiki-like attitude, if I may say so.
I see no reason why we need additional policy and bureaucracy
specifically
for links.
For one thing, the page WP:EL is very bureaucratic as it stands; the good part of it is the "maintenance and review" section, where templates for tagging links regarded as potential problems are mentioned.
Also, this discussion thread reveals fairly clearly that there are differing views on the matter.
Charles
I see nothing unwiki-like in suggesting that a person should defend their additions to an article when disputes arise. That's a pretty standard expectation in any collaborative environment. There's no lack of assumption of good faith involved in an editor removing an addition if they have reason to believe it is not beneficial to the article.
Sxeptomaniac