> > Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:16:48 +0100 > From: Carcharoth <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher > Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck? > To: English Wikipedia <[email protected]> > > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Matt Jacobs <[email protected]> > 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 > assumption > > of good faith involved in an editor removing an addition if they have > reason > > to believe it is not beneficial to the article. > > But what if the editors can't agree on whether the link benefits the > article? > > To get specific, I found a resource and was getting ready to add links > to lots of articles, but pulled back after others didn't seem as > excited as me about the resource: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29/Archive_24#British-Path.C3.A9_news_clips_archive > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_2#British-Path.C3.A9_news_clips_archive > > It now has 359 links: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=250&offset=250&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.britishpathe.com > > Back in January, there were 130 links (you will have to take my word > for that, as posted in that discussion, as I didn't take a > screenshot). So it seems the use of such links (to archived news reel > clips) can spread without too much pushback or people worrying about > spamming. > > But if someone had added 200 links in just a few days, that would have > worried some people. > > Should they have been worried? > > Carcharoth >
When a high volume of links to one place are inserted, I can understand why some people would tend to take a close look: spammers are a major annoyance. However, a spammer is usually not going to be able to make a solid argument for why those links belong, and it will quickly become apparent if the link offers little in the way of benefit to the articles. The slightly panicky anti-spam response seems to be more of a problem with poor judgment, and not easily addressed through rule changes. Sxeptomaniac > Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 21:57:25 +0100 > From: Charles Matthews <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher > Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck? > To: English Wikipedia <[email protected]> > > > 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 addition if they have > reason > > to believe it is not beneficial to the article. > > > But if they remove it from a generally anti-spam ideological point of > view, or on the grounds of "conflict of interest", then there is such a > problem of good faith being disregarded. Quiddity has now gone into this > in greater detail, and WP:EL is _very clearly_ drafted from an anti-spam > perspective. > > Charles WP:COI is the most-abused of all the guideline/policy pages on WP, in my opinion. It should never, ever be used to win a content disagreement, yet it frequently is. Spam is a problem when the links are misleading, not directly relevant, duplicate more well-known or less commercialized sites, direct to very unreliable sources, etc. However, if an editor can't argue why the link is not useful, then they shouldn't be labeling it spam/COI. Perhaps WP:EL could stand to be edited, but I consider it more a matter of poor judgment than anything else. Sxeptomaniac _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
