On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On 30 March 2010 12:49, Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like that, I don't think.
Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but that they now have few actual rights.
I'm not at all convinced there's an actual problem here.
Prospective useful links and references can (and should) go on the talk page.
- d.
Yes, that disposes of them. The point is to have external links and further reading available to users of the reference at the foot of the article. The consensus to routinely remove such material arose a few years ago and it diminishes the utility of Wikipedia as a reference work.
Fred Bauder
I don't think there's such a consensus, site wide. I have seen articles where someone OWNs it and there is a local consensus.
Keep in mind that we risk ending up with our articles web link farms which is are not maintained in any consistent manner.
I support good links, and add them. But there's a downside there too.