On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Matt Jacobs <sxeptomaniac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
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.
But what if the editors can't agree on whether the link benefits the article?
To get specific, I found a resource and was getting ready to add links
to lots of articles, but pulled back after others didn't seem as
excited as me about the resource:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Arc…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_2…
It now has 359 links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=250&…
Back in January, there were 130 links (you will have to take my word
for that, as posted in that discussion, as I didn't take a
screenshot). So it seems the use of such links (to archived news reel
clips) can spread without too much pushback or people worrying about
spamming.
But if someone had added 200 links in just a few days, that would have
worried some people.
Should they have been worried?
Carcharoth