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 2 Apr 2010, at 11:21, Charles Matthews wrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Charles Matthews
>> wrote:
>>> Samuel Klein wrote:
* interlanguage and interproject links to a set of articles
about the
same topic
>>> On the final point, the "poster" style
Carcharoth wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Charles Matthews
> 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 wikiver
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Charles Matthews
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 useful
>> * external links
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 useful
> * external links or further reading
> * a list of images related to an article
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:09 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Fred Bauder
>> 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
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
>
> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:16:48 +0100
> From: Carcharoth
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher
> Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
> To: English Wikipedia
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, Matt Jacobs
> wrote:
>
>
&g
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 a
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 9:21 PM, quiddity wrote:
> 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 problems; but Eventualism is one
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 2:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell 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.
>
General Thoughts:
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:02 PM, 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 fait
>
> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 16:33:36 +0100
> From: Charles Matthews
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher
> Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
> To: English Wikipedia
>
> Matt Jacobs wrote:
> >> Anyway, the point is not that
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Fred Bauder
> 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 and it dimin
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 6:10 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On 30 March 2010 12:49, Charles Matthews
>> 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 th
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 i
> Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 12:49:26 +0100
> From: Charles Matthews
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] A war on external links? Was: Inside Higher
> Ed: Does Wikipedia Suck?
> To: English Wikipedia
>
>
> Carcharoth wrote:
> > That probably misses the flux. How many links
> On 30 March 2010 12:49, Charles Matthews
> 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 external links are s
On 30 March 2010 12:49, Charles Matthews
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 external links are systematical
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
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 wrote:
> I made this page a few years ago:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angela/L
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,
marketi
On 29 March 2010 10:58, Gregory Maxwell 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 an article that ca
> 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 th
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 i
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
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Charles Matthews
> 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 exact
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Gregory Maxwell 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:
Sometimes, if you prepare a proper bibliography for an article (those
notes people should write
On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 4:39 AM, Charles Matthews
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 trawli
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Fred Bauder 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 t
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Fred Bauder 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
>>
>> Th
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Fred Bauder 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 reading s
32 matches
Mail list logo
