On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
A feature to improve the curating and presentation of these links
might be handy. We have a few places were having a set of links as
a first class member of the wikiverse would be
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
A feature to improve the curating and presentation of these links
might be handy. We have a few places were having a set of links as
a first class member
On 2 Apr 2010, at 11:21, Charles Matthews wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Samuel Klein wrote:
* interlanguage and interproject links to a set of articles
about the
same topic
On the final point, the
Michael Peel wrote:
There does seem to be a possibility for a bit of lateral thinking here.
If, say, the current external links and interwiki sections were done by
transclusion from something separately maintained (a set of pages
organised by both language and topic?), how could that be
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
Yes, that disposes of them. The point is to have external links and
further reading available to users of the reference at the foot of the
That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then
almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like
that, I don't think.
Carcharoth
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Angela bees...@gmail.com wrote:
I made this page a few years ago:
Carcharoth wrote:
That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then
almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like
that, I don't think.
Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically
persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but
On 30 March 2010 12:49, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then
almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like
that, I don't think.
Anyway, the point is not that
On 30 March 2010 12:49, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
That probably misses the flux. How many links are added and then
almost immediately removed? That won't be picked up in something like
that, I don't think.
Anyway, the point is not that
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:49:26 +0100
From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher
Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Carcharoth wrote:
That probably misses the
Matt Jacobs wrote:
Anyway, the point is not that external links are systematically
persecuted (they may be patchily persecuted); but that they now have few
actual rights.
Charles
And why should links have any particular rights? External links should be
justified in the same way as
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
wrote:
Yes, that disposes of them. The point is to have external links and
further reading available to users of the reference at the foot of the
article. The consensus to routinely remove such material arose a few
years ago
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:33:36 +0100
From: Charles Matthews charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher
Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Matt Jacobs wrote:
Anyway, the point is not
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Matt Jacobs sxeptoman...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
I see nothing unwiki-like in suggesting that a person should defend their
additions to an article when disputes arise. That's a pretty standard
expectation in any collaborative environment. There's no lack of
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
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.
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:21 PM, quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
As has been said before: Most of these types of conflicts can be
boiled down to [[m:Immediatism]] vs [[m:Eventualism]].
(imho) Immediatism is great for BLPs, and CurrentEvents, and dealing
with unambiguous
Matt Jacobs wrote:
I see nothing unwiki-like in suggesting that a person should defend their
additions to an article when disputes arise. That's a pretty standard
expectation in any collaborative environment. There's no lack of assumption
of good faith involved in an editor removing an
Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:16:48 +0100
From: Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher
Ed: DoesWikipedia Suck?
To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Matt Jacobs
Charles Matthews wrote:
The point would be no different from (say) unreferenced content: there
the distinction between may be removed and must be removed is quite
important. And there is the right, not of the link but the editor
adding it, to have good faith assumed: other things being
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
And
further reading sections can point the way for future expansions of
the article, or for the reader to go and find out more about the
topic.
Carcharoth
That is why I despise the
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@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_
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
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:
Sometimes, if you prepare a proper bibliography for an article (those
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@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
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.
2. try to get a policy for adding a subpage for links to articles
3. run a mirror of the project, with links added, which
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
On 29 March 2010 10:58, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
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:
Yeah. 7-10 is IMO the absolute limit for non-reference links, and I
can hardly think of
I made this page a few years ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angela/Links_study
Updating it for 2010 doesn't provide any evidence that there was a war
on external links any time recently. Maybe there was one in 2006?
Total links in the external links section of 8 articles (Russia,
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
And
further reading sections can point the way for future expansions of
the article, or for the reader to go and find out more about the
topic.
Carcharoth
That is why I despise the war on external links and further
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
And
further reading sections can point the way for future expansions of
the article, or for the reader to go and find out more about the
topic.
29 matches
Mail list logo
