Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 7/31/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
While I like that we're debating ways to encourage more copyright-compliant uploads, I'm not sure about this particular idea. Right now, when I happen across an article with a red link for an image, I know to remove it and/or look for a substitute. Do we want to make people wonder whether they should wait around in case there's an upload forthcoming?
That bring around another question... Why do we consider redlinks for non yet created articles benificial while we conisder redlinks for not yet created illustrations to be a problem that must be fixed? :)
A perceptive cultural observation. Although I would add that red links prompting the creation of articles are not necessarily always beneficial - it depends on how good the judgment is of the editor who made the link.
--Michael Snow
On 8/1/06, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
A perceptive cultural observation. Although I would add that red links prompting the creation of articles are not necessarily always beneficial
- it depends on how good the judgment is of the editor who made the link.
I seem to be noticing that people are getting more reluctant to make redlinks. Is it the mentality that says "if we don't have an article on X by now, we don't need one"? I notice it particularly among somewhat obscure figures from history (for whom I'm sure a verifiable article could be written though), but also for a decent number of "concepts", some places, and even the odd mountain!
Steve