Steve Bennett wrote:
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.
Last time I checked [[Wikipedia:External links]] it was the guidance
offered.
- 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.
Last time I checked [[Wikipedia:External links]] it offered guidance on
avoiding that.
-
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?
Last time I checked [[Wikipedia:External links]] it offered guidance to
the effect that we consider linking to an open source web directory
rather than to links for forums, personal homepages and blogs which,
whilst relevant to the article subject, aren't relevant to the article
itself. Lines get drawn where consensus forms.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.19/556 - Release Date: 28/11/06