joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
'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
This is a strawman. The point is that we shouldn't be removing links from an article unless those links are somehow damaging to the content. The distinction between a random blog or a spam link to buy cars and Michael Moore's personal website should be obvious.
There are many ways of damaging the encyclopedia, and by extension the content. Harassing Wikipedia volunteers indirectly harms content and disrupts the community. (Yes, I know that the pat response is: "But removing the links causes even more disruption!", to which my response is "If we have a policy with a procedure then there needn't be any disruption involved in handling harassment links).
Spam links don't damage articles, at least not individually, nor do blogs. Are you saying that a link to buying cars is worse than a link urging people to call an editor at work to complain about his editing?
W.