On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 13:49:55 +0000, actionforum(a)comcast.net
<actionforum(a)comcast.net> wrote:
The subject is the edit summary from the edit that
removed NSK's link. Independent of the particulars of NSK's site, this summary is
not a valid excuse, wikipedia articles can grow to a level of completeness that most
external sites cannot match, yet a lot of our information comes from external sites, and
it can be important to cite those sites even though their information has been included in
the article and a subsequent editor unfamiliar with the history may now consider them
redundant.. -- Silverback
While I see your point, and even agree, it is probably preferable in
such a case to put the link in a "references" section, rather than
simply giving it some invisible immortal status in the "external
links" section. By which I mean, if an editor can come along and say
"this link gives me no useful information beyond what's already here",
the link has ceased to be useful *as further reading*, which is what
the majority of External links provide, so they are quite justified in
saying so. If it was a reference used in *creating* the article, it
should be cited as such, and then people will know that that is why it
is listed, and comments about comparitive levels of content become
irrelevant.
--
Rowan Collins BSc
[IMSoP]