Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:49:26 +0100 From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck? To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
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.
Charles
And why should links have any particular "rights"? External links should be justified in the same way as any addition to the article. They may not require the same verifiability standards, but they should be judged to be a recommended place for further reading. In some way or another, they should add content the editors judge to be useful, and not simply be about the subject. Considering that for every good link I've seen inserted, I've also seen one that was useless or even misleading or libelous, why would they need any special protection?
I see no reason why we need additional policy and bureaucracy specifically for links.
Sxeptomaniac
Matt Jacobs wrote:
Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but that they now have few actual rights.
Charles
And why should links have any particular "rights"? External links should be justified in the same way as any addition to the article. They may not require the same verifiability standards, but they should be judged to be a recommended place for further reading. In some way or another, they should add content the editors judge to be useful, and not simply be about the subject. Considering that for every good link I've seen inserted, I've also seen one that was useless or even misleading or libelous, why would they need any special protection?
The point would be no different from (say) unreferenced content: there the distinction between "may be removed" and "must be removed" is quite important. And there is the "right", not of the link but the editor adding it, to have "good faith assumed": other things being equal, assume that the link was added to help develop the encyclopedia. The onus is not always on the editor adding to an article to "justify" additions: that is a very unwiki-like attitude, if I may say so.
I see no reason why we need additional policy and bureaucracy specifically for links.
For one thing, the page WP:EL is very bureaucratic as it stands; the good part of it is the "maintenance and review" section, where templates for tagging links regarded as potential problems are mentioned.
Also, this discussion thread reveals fairly clearly that there are differing views on the matter.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
The point would be no different from (say) unreferenced content: there the distinction between "may be removed" and "must be removed" is quite important. And there is the "right", not of the link but the editor adding it, to have "good faith assumed": other things being equal, assume that the link was added to help develop the encyclopedia.
The problem with a phrase like "may be removed" is its implicit ambiguity. Those of us who read "may" in a potential sense expressing a possibility are offset by others who read "may" in a permissive sense.
Ec