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