--- Garion96 <garion96(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Concerning option 2b. I don't think articles
should reference (as a source)
other articles...
I used to agree, but there is a problem with this idea though.
The reason "why wiki works" is due to its ease of creating [[link]]s and
making [[new pages]]. <-- See? And because its centralised, its free (as
in freedom), and guided by NPOV, (insert Jimbo deification here... PBUH...)
(did I mention easy to edit?), Wikipedia has essentially converted all that
energy that would have gone intomaking cheezy homepage subpages into a central
resource.
Hence if we can expect some degree of quality from it, why cant we expect to
link to it? Particularly when making elemental points on talk pages, but Im
thinking in particular of article intros/ledes and recent squabbles Ive had
with SlimJay about what general formula to take. We agreed (and then she changed
their mind again), that all articles basically fall into the two categories of
objects and concepts: Concepts are harder to write because they are abstract,
rely on other concepts to define them in a relative way, and often need to be
disabiguated from other concepts. Plus they are often controversial.
I like articles which have good ledes, and Ive developed a basic methodology for
how good ledes look - which has been re-removed from WP:LEDE for some inane reason.
In such articles the distinct feature, besides structure, is heavy linking to
related concepts - and not external linking mind you. Why else do something if we
dont believe in it? This isnt to say there arent imperfections of course, but lede
links are more likely to get clicked and viewed and edited.
SV
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com