On Nov 21, 2007 2:03 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
On Nov 21, 2007 1:31 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/11/2007, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 21, 2007 1:02 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
doing so was the same. Crappy links are deleted for all sorts of reasons, mostly because they're crappy, even if they would also have been deleted under that strawman BADSITES policy.
Except none of these were crappy links.
They looked like crappy links to me, but I could be wrong. Any specifics?
The deletion of encyclopedic links to nielsenhayden.com by Will Beback.
That old chestnut? It's the other strawman used as the rallying cry. Will realized he made an error, and apologized profusely. The whole issue was over long ago, but anti-BADSITES people bring it up again and again and again, as that one incident has been extremely useful.
People misapply *real* policy every day, we don't then say OMG BAD POLICY, IT MUST GO!!!!!
These were links that would have been included in article space but for the fact that they contained
material we
didn't like.
Err, "containing material we don't like" pretty much covers every link ever deleted from Wikipedia.
... for other than encyclopedic reasons.
One man's encyclopedic reasons...
Jayjg, kindly make up your mind. Are you defending things like the removal of Making Light or not?
Please don't make the Fallacy of many questions. I've never defended the removal of Making Light, as far as I can recall, so I don't know what I would have to "make up my mind" about.
At the top of this post you assert that such things were wrong, and at the bottom you seem to be arguing that removal of otherwise good external links is
"Otherwise good external links". Therein lies a whole universe of ambiguity.
ok and moreover constitute an encyclopedic reason to remove the links which is hard to understand given the serious NPOV violations that it entails
"Serious NPOV violations?" Hardly. That's an argument I've seen several times, and, frankly, it's specious. A link isn't a POV, much less a *significant* one.
and the fact that these are links that but for the mention of Wikipedians we would have in the articles.
Just because we would typically do something doesn't mean that we *must* do so, even *should* do so in every single case. That's not really an argument, and external links should be evaluated on their overall merits.