jayjg wrote:
On 5/30/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Here's a fourth case: the Brandt link on Wikipedia Signpost.
I don't see any specific benefit to Wikipedia in having its unofficial newspaper link to WR.
Just to keep the facts straight, the link in question was not a link to Wikipedia Review. I know Sheldon has mentioned the possibility of such links in discussion of hypotheticals, but I don't recall that The Wikipedia Signpost has ever linked to Wikipedia Review.
--Michael Snow
On 31/05/07, Michael Snow wikipedia@att.net wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 5/30/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Here's a fourth case: the Brandt link on Wikipedia Signpost.
I don't see any specific benefit to Wikipedia in having its unofficial newspaper link to WR.
Just to keep the facts straight, the link in question was not a link to Wikipedia Review. I know Sheldon has mentioned the possibility of such links in discussion of hypotheticals, but I don't recall that The Wikipedia Signpost has ever linked to Wikipedia Review.
Right. So what was the reasoning given for the repeated removal of the non-WR link?
- d.