Florence Devouard wrote:
Rich Holton wrote:
Blu Aardvark wrote:
John Lee wrote:
Having said that, I still don't understand why the MediaWiki patch was rejected. Why is it not sensible to allow MediaWiki installations to nofollow interwiki links? It's a feature someone out there might conceivably want.
It's conceivable, but probably fairly unlikely. Interwiki links, by their nature, are incredibly unlikely to be spam (although there are a lot of prefixes in the default table that are, in my opinion, utter crap). Still, the patch is available if a user is genuinely concerned about it.
I still don't understand the resistance to making all non-Foundation sites no-follow. The fact that people disagree with the idea, but are providing no rational reason, only encourages the perception that there *is* conflict of interest in the current situation.
Let me emphasize: perception is important in this issue.
-Rich
I fully agree. All non Foundation sites should be no follow.
Anthere
Or to be more precise. Either all links (external and interwiki) should be nofollow Or none of them should be. Or we can work on white lists together for both types of links.
What is weird right now is that external links do not have the same standards than interwiki.
I support similar standards
ant