On 11/28/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:
- Sources of
the information in the article
These should be placed in the References section, not the External links
one.
Is this actually in the policy? At least once I've seen someone move
links I've placed in the Sources section into the External Links
section.
(did I mention that I strongly support renaming "References" and
"External links" to "Sources" and "Further reading"
respectively?)
- Sites that are more informative than the
article (particularly where
the article is very short)
- Sites that represent some example of what is described in the
article (eg, a ski resort, for an article about ski resorts...)
These should be in the External links section.
Which frequently becomes an unmitigated spamfest. There should be ways
to avoid this.
-
Community/portal/forum sites, where people may want to go if they're
really interested in the topic..
These should generally not be included.
To play devil's advocate, aren't we trying to be informative? Should
we be keeping genuine sources of information away from our readers? If
the topic is "Juggling in Copenhagen", then wouldn't a forum for
jugglers in Copenhagen be a really appropriate link?
Steve