On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Mirko Thiessen wrote:
LittleDan wrote:
Well, then that's just because of its POV. We link to POV sites. LDan
There may be some instances, where it is justified to link to a propaganda source. For example, if you have an article about Serbian history, I would not protest against having a link to freesrpska, provided that a comment explains the nature of that site. But we don't need to have this link on every page about a detail of Serbian history. Take for example the article "Skull Tower"; it is a quite short article, but it is followed by three (!) links to the freesrpska page, among them a subpage pretending to explain the "Islamic conflict on the Balkan" (see http://www.freesrpska.org/en/prevare/islam.html for that blatant propaganda). Our readers will click on these links and read all this garbage.
Both of you define different sides to an issue I've been wondering about myself: just how should we judge the quality of the material pointed to in the external links part of our articles?
For example, if I were aggressive in my criticism towards these links, I would remove many of the several URLs in the [[King Arthur]] article because I feel, frankly, that they link to material that read like a mediocre high school essay. But I haven't touched them because (1) I wonder if my insistence on a scholarly approach to the material isn't promoting a POV that I'm not aware of; and (2) they do include material on the later Romance of King Arthur that isn't sufficiently developed in the article as it stands.
Or, to put it another way, is deleting external links that one doesn't like similar to deleting material in the Talk: pages one doesn't like?
Geoff