[WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?

[Fred Bauder]

> There are other things to do short of that.
> 1. try to change the interpretation of NOT DIRECTORY and the EL policy
> to permit a section of links with more generous standards.

Good faith requires an attempt.

> 2. try to get a policy for  adding a subpage for links to articles

That is what they did on Citizendium.

Fred

> 3. run a mirror of the project, with  links added, which is easier &
> better  than a true fork where the articles diverge.
>
> David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
> wrote:
>> I think the point is to use editorial judgment with respect to what
>> external links and further reading are worthwhile.
>>
>> My experience is that very good links regularly get axed. And there is
>> little you can do other than to fork the project if you don't like it.
>>
>> Fred Bauder
>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Charles Matthews
>>> <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>> Of your three points, I don't really find anything to agree with.
>>>> Taking
>>>> the attitide that "External links" is the name of a "Further reading"
>>>> section for reading that happens to be online, what exactly _are_ you
>>>> arguing? That trawling through the first hundred hits on well-known
>>>> search engines will always produce those links? That is easy to
>>>> refute.
>>>> For many sites of high academic value, precisely no (zero) SEO is
>>>> done.
>>>> I can easily think of examples. Very good links can be very hard to
>>>> find, unless you have a good reason to suspect they are there.
>>>
>>> High value links should always be provided.  Can you provide an
>>> reference to a Wikimedian arguing that links to the most useful
>>> additional resources shouldn't be provided?   I'll gladly go and
>>> disagree with them.
>>>
>>>
>>> But I do believe that  a list of, say, 50 links tagged onto the end of
>>> an article typically has negative value for the following reasons:
>>> * Readers will be inundated, no one is likely to follow more than a
>>> couple so the very high value links will be lost in the less valuable
>>> ones.
>>> * Wikipedia editors are unlikely periodically review links in a large
>>> collection (supported by the high density of dead links, and the
>>> malicious sites I've found in prior scans of our internals links).
>>> * Long lists provide plausible denyability for someone attempting to
>>> profit by placement, as additions to link soup doesn't look suspect.
>>> * Someone looking for a large collection of assorted links on a
>>> subject can find a larger and more current list from any of the search
>>> providers.
>>>
>>>> Given your style of argument, which is that we should be relying on
>>>> the
>>>> utility of commercial entities over which we have no control at all,
>>>> to
>>>> help our readers find the further information that we know (because
>>>> WP
>>>> does not aim to give complete coverage) they will need, I would say
>>>> that
>>>> Fred's worries are amply justified.
>>>
>>> I bothered making the argument here because I believed that Fred was
>>> likely mischaracterizing the nuanced position people have taking in
>>> trying to balance the value of additional links vs their cost as a
>>> simple "war on external links", when no one was likely carrying on any
>>> such war:  Just because someone has decided on a different benefit
>>> trade-off than you doesn't make their activities a "war on all X".
>>>
>>> I wish there were a usable non-commercial search engine. But Wikipedia
>>> clearly isn't that.  Wikipedia's value is in human editorial review.
>>> A search engine's value is in enormous scale automation, "machine
>>> neutrality" (not the google results are neutral, but it is resistant
>>> to many kinds of bias which wikipedia is not), and automated updates.
>>> Everyone on the internet already has access to high quality search
>>> engines. I just don't think that making Wikipedia into a poor search
>>> engine at the expensive of diluting the selectivity is a net positive
>>> for the reader.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WikiEN-l mailing list
>> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>