Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com:
'm not proposing removing all external links, I'm proposing removing a small number of links.
I hope that you aren't saying that all external links provide value and we should never remove any external link that a well-meaning editor (or greedy website owner) adds. If we stopped deleting external links and removed the spam blacklist I predict we'd have more links than text, especially in some topics. We include a large variety of links because they provide encyclopedic value. If we determine that they don't provide that value then we delete them.
Will
This is a strawman. The point is that we shouldn't be removing links from an article unless those links are somehow damaging to the content. The distinction between a random blog or a spam link to buy cars and Michael Moore's personal website should be obvious.
There are many ways of damaging the encyclopedia, and by extension the content. Harassing Wikipedia volunteers indirectly harms content and disrupts the community. (Yes, I know that the pat response is: "But removing the links causes even more disruption!", to which my response is "If we have a policy with a procedure then there needn't be any disruption involved in handling harassment links).
Spam links don't damage articles, at least not individually, nor do blogs. Are you saying that a link to buying cars is worse than a link urging people to call an editor at work to complain about his editing?
W.
The problem with spam links at all is that even a few of them make people less likely to trust whether the external links provided are useful. And speaking frankly, one of the first things I try to do when learning about a controversial topic is see what external links Wikipedia has. I doubt I'm the only one who does that. As long as the page which happens to have an attack on the Wikipedian is a relevant external link it is better and doing less damage to the article than a link about buying cars or a random blog. And the vast majority, most likely all, the damage from harassing links will occur whether or not we link to the website. The end result of this also is to remove more and more to prevent harassement. For example, if someone keeps harassing an editor until the person's article is deleted, do we delete it? No, not any more than we would if the person in question had politely asked for their article to be removed as one of borderline notability. Nor do we make convenience alterations and remove pertinent information of notable people simply to stop their little campaigns on Wikipedia. We do remove information when the sourcing is questionable, but that's basically it. And there's no substantial difference changing that policy whether we change it for birthdates, external links, sourced criticism or anything else.