On Nov 21, 2007 5:46 PM, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/11/2007, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 21, 2007 1:26 PM, James Farrar
<james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu
<joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Quoting jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>om>:
> Just because the outcome is the same
doesn't mean the reasoning for
> doing so was the same. Crappy links are deleted for all sorts of
> reasons, mostly because they're crappy, even if they would also have
> been deleted under that strawman BADSITES policy.
Except none of these were crappy links. These were links that would have been
included in article space but for the fact that they contained material we
didn't like.
Or that they were links to pages on sites that had *some pages* that
contained material that we didn't like.
Which, again, would pretty much describe every single link that has
ever been deleted from Wikipedia.
Pathetic.
That's a very uncivil comment, James.
Links are, and should be, deleted from Wikipedia because they are
unencyclopaedic.
Right.
Links should not be (but have been) deleted from
Wikipedia if they
have encyclopaedic value simply because of material "that we don't
like" that happens to be hosted on the same website.
Define "encyclopedic value". Now get 10 Wikipedians to agree on that
definition.