100:. I don't mean footnotes or references. I mean the cluster of links in the "external links" section of an article. These are external articles which are tagged "sort of relevant", but are not relevant to be used in a citation or footnote. They are a happy hunting ground for wikispam: people increasing the hits on their page by putting it onto Knowledge.
275:
Some editors like to add a paragraph to a person's article every time they make the news. Bad idea. Some news items turn out to be irrelevant to their career as a whole. It seems to me that a good rule of thumb is to wait a week or two before putting news stories into a biography (except for things
181:
OK, various reading has shown that the purpose of the date link is not to produce a link, but to allow automatic reformatting of dates. Personally, if I had the choice between autoformatting of dates (and more blue text) and less blue links (and nonstandard date formats) I'd take the latter. But at
241:
99% of these are Stoo-pid!! If a person, who is already famous, gets mentioned in a TV show or song, that isn't noteworthy. Like Trivia sections, these sections are just a gathering ground for random factoids that can't be fit into the article in a meaningful way. These "References in Pop
Culture"
72:
article on 22-Feb-2006, I wrote that she was the youngest ever
Australian recipient of an MBE. Unfortunately I neglected to cite my source. When this fact was queried on 4-Jan-2007, I tried to find my source. Alas, I found lots of sources - but none which I was sure were not simply ripped off the
55:
Too many dubious "facts" get put into
Knowledge. Later someone notices it is dubious, but is reluctant to delete it, so tags it . I think this is the wrong approach. If something looks dubious, it probably is. And in that case, the burden of proof is with the "fact". So if I see something which I
223:
Just a clarification on my comment, "I don't care what ... religion a person is" - I mean for the purposes of an encyclopedia article about them. I don't believe religion is unimportant - far from it. I believe what one believes about God is of the utmost importance - but by this I mean what one
209:
After seeing disputes and arguments over whether certain chess players really are Jewish or not (especially when said players don't make a big deal of their religion or ethnicity themselves), I've come to the conclusion that racial and religious categories (like "Jewish chess players") are A Bad
307:
Many articles duplicate material from other articles, rather than (or as well as) putting in a link. The problem is that any fixes then have to be done twice. Articles should be succinct, with lots of links, rather than trying to duplicate what is in those links.
103:
If an external link adds nothing, or even little, I am happy to delete it. I particularly despise external links created with
Knowledge text. I often (and probably should always) delete them without hesitation, regardless of what good content is in them.
291:
On a related note, and I see this especially with politicians, is the temptation to only insert negative news items about a person. Are they accurate and referenced? Absolutely. But are they notable, in the context of the person's career? Often not.
316:
I don't like heading names with implied judgements ("the youngest ever XXXX") or trying to convey a sense of drama ("Success, failure, success"). Headings should be staid and informative, giving a guide of how the article is divided up.
107:
The only external links that really deserve to be on a page are "official" links, such as the official page of the subject of the article. Anything else, if it cannot warrant being a footnote or reference, should probably be deleted.
366:? In the absence of a statement from the man himself, I did a little research. Kasparov's father was Jewish, his mother is not - those facts are not in dispute. Nor is there any evidence that he identifies as a Jew. According to
64:
Knowledge editors need to be very careful with their facts, because their work is plagiarised, oops I mean used, all over the web, creating authoritative-sounding sources and obscuring the real sources.
183:
224:
actually believes, not what particular religion one was brought up in or nominally identifies with (which seems to be the case in 99% of "category: people of class X of religion Y" listings).
210:
Thing. And the same goes for ethnic categories. For the purposes of
Knowledge, I don't care what race or religion a person is(*), unless it directly relates to their field (a Jewish
125:
If you link to another website, you should give your reader a good summary of the site's contents, and the reasons why this specific website is relevant to the article in question.
200:"Knowledge has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic."
374:
significant branches of
Judaism do not consider such a person a Jew. But because someone could find an internet source calling him a Jew, my argument was dismissed as
177:
I know it's in the point above, but it deserves a separate section. Links to dates are pointless and add nothing to an article except for unnecessary blue clutter.
432:
416:. But sometimes it is. In particular, from the late 1980s to late 1990s, news items were often posted on Usenet, and these postings (archived in
447:
351:
Every now and then, when a good reference is not available, a dubious one is used. Sometimes, a little deduction - which some people class as
84:
Anonymous authors do more harm than good. Knowledge is big enough now that it doesn't need them. I would not object if the default was to
260:
is an example of an article which deserves a pop culture section - because that's the only reason anyone remembers
Claytons at all!
535:
263:
I think a good rule of thumb for popular culture references is this: they only makes sense when referenced by something or someone
573:
437:
343:
If
Knowledge help has an index or a contents, I've never been able to find it. Which is just as bad as not having one at all.
442:
56:
know is dubious, I have no hesitation in deleting it. I rarely if ever attach to dubious statements. I just delete them.
542:
214:
category, for instance, is quite appropriate). The categories seem to only exist for racial and religious point scoring (
454:
428:
This is for my own personal reference: useful pages I sometimes watch, but which I don't want cluttering my watchlist:
276:
that are obviously significant, e.g. election results for politicians). The guideline I would suggest, I christen the
85:
120:
139:
I love links which are relevant. Click on a related topic, and read more about something. Links are what made
463:- the best tag I can find for those annoying time-based phrases. ("recently", "in the past five years", etc.)
363:
420:) are often the only online reference available. So, sensibly used, Usenet can be a good and useful source.
397:, and concluded it would struggle to exceed 1 million. Thankfully this time common sense prevailed, and my
230:
195:
398:
375:
352:
246:
413:
287:
Ask yourself: will it be relevant in five years' time? If not, it does not belong in an encyclopedia.
531:
517:
97:
184:
Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#A new parallel syntax for autoformatting dates
507:
329:
497:
73:
Knowledge article. No good citing them, that's a circular source. So I deleted the claim.
8:
525:
26:
521:
503:
485:
128:
113:
Every external link should be accompanied by a short sentence explaining its relevance.
346:
194:) are pointless and should never be inserted. The manual of style discourages them,
479:
249:, because it is up to Knowledge editors to decide which items belong in the lists.
169:). They just add pointless clutter to an article, and obscure the important links.
284:
Wait one month before putting something in, unless it is unambiguously noteworthy.
325:
Knowledge help is a mess. I see a guideline once, then can never find it again.
552:
390:
367:
359:
144:
69:
567:
460:
417:
333:
76:
Moral: Knowledge is widely cited, so it needs to be thoroughly cited itself.
394:
59:
301:
211:
17:
555:- the information can mostly be got from the reliable source at abc.com
166:
158:
242:
sections trivialise the article and actually detract from
Knowledge.
472:
Articles I want to add to when I get the time or find the answers.
379:
216:"See how many eminent people in field X belong to my race/religion!"
347:
A little
Original Research is sometimes better than a bad reference
257:
155:
204:
190:
However, in my opinion, links to bare years (like X was born in
409:
270:
448:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion
389:
article used to say 285 million, based on a single reference:
172:
111:
If I was setting policy on external links, it would be this: "
386:
151:
385:
Example 2: How many people play chess on the internet? The
191:
162:
140:
328:
Knowledge help needs a comprehensive Table of Contents. (
404:
60:
Knowledge is cited too much, making circular references
433:
Knowledge:Administrator intervention against vandalism
295:
229:
p.s. I've just discovered this is a known issue. See
504:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/briefs/brief01.htm
378:. Sigh. I only dropped the matter because I decided
252:
Pop culture references are only really relevant for
127:
So the guideline exists, it's just usually ignored.
34:
320:
311:
393:. I checked the membership of the largest online
79:
565:
380:#Racial and Religious categories are A Bad Thing
91:
205:Racial and Religious categories are A Bad Thing
534:- lots could be done there, including merging
355:- is better than using the dubious reference.
391:http://www.turowski.com/chess/world2005.html
271:Be cautious with inserting recent news items
236:
256:things which have passed into pop culture.
173:Date links suck, but at least WP is onto it
520:and the circumstances under which she and
536:List of chess world championship matches
182:least the WP community is on to it. See
39:
14:
566:
438:Knowledge:Requests for page protection
443:Knowledge talk:Semi-protection policy
405:Usenet is sometimes a good reference
304:, "edit once good, edit twice bad".
121:Knowledge:External links#How to link
543:Talk:List of world records in chess
245:These sections are also inherently
23:
455:Knowledge:Redirects for discussion
296:Links are good, Duplication is bad
196:WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking
24:
585:
496:I have an unanswered question at
134:
68:Example: back when I created the
450:(not an easy reference to find!)
150:But what I despise are links to
35:Some of my thoughts on Knowledge
467:
423:
412:is generally not regarded as a
321:Knowledge Help pages are a mess
312:Keep heading names encyclopedic
574:Wikipedians in South Australia
80:Semi-Protection is mostly good
13:
1:
364:Category:Jewish chess players
92:External Links are mostly bad
508:Australian_Senate#Historical
488:needs a lot of reorganising.
233:(first created 23-Nov-2006)
231:Knowledge:Overcategorization
7:
10:
590:
401:overruled the reference.
237:References in Pop Culture
131:02:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
532:World Chess Championship
518:Talk:Nona Gaprindashvili
482:- intro needs a rewrite.
541:I've got a question at
278:"one month / five years
123:includes the sentence,
457:for deleting redirects
330:Help:Contents/Site map
498:Talk:Margaret Cunneen
476:Bible / Christianity
161:, or to years (as in
40:Don't it, delete it!
506:to fix the table at
399:WP:Original Research
376:WP:Original Research
353:WP:Original Research
247:WP:Original Research
44:it, delete it!": -->
526:Grandmaster (chess)
254:otherwise unnotable
27:User:Adpete/Sandbox
522:Maia Chiburdanidze
486:Biblical Inerrancy
414:WP:Reliable Source
358:Example 1: Should
300:Or to paraphrase
165:) or days (as in
581:
480:Epistle of James
340:comprehensive).
143:- and hence the
52:
51:
47:
589:
588:
584:
583:
582:
580:
579:
578:
564:
563:
560:General cleanup
470:
426:
407:
349:
323:
314:
298:
273:
239:
207:
175:
137:
96:I despise most
94:
82:
62:
53:
49:
45:
43:
42:
37:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
587:
577:
576:
562:
561:
558:
557:
556:
553:Ryugyong Hotel
547:
546:
545:
539:
529:
512:
511:
510:
500:
491:
490:
489:
483:
469:
466:
465:
464:
458:
451:
445:
440:
435:
425:
422:
406:
403:
360:Garry Kasparov
348:
345:
322:
319:
313:
310:
297:
294:
289:
288:
285:
272:
269:
238:
235:
227:
226:
206:
203:
188:
187:
174:
171:
145:World Wide Web
136:
135:Don't overlink
133:
98:external links
93:
90:
81:
78:
70:Tracey Wickham
61:
58:
41:
38:
36:
33:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
586:
575:
572:
571:
569:
559:
554:
551:
550:
548:
544:
540:
537:
533:
530:
527:
524:received the
523:
519:
516:
515:
513:
509:
505:
501:
499:
495:
494:
492:
487:
484:
481:
478:
477:
475:
474:
473:
462:
461:Template:When
459:
456:
452:
449:
446:
444:
441:
439:
436:
434:
431:
430:
429:
421:
419:
418:Google Groups
415:
411:
402:
400:
396:
395:Chess servers
392:
388:
383:
381:
377:
373:
369:
368:Who is a Jew?
365:
361:
356:
354:
344:
341:
339:
335:
334:Help:Contents
331:
326:
318:
309:
305:
303:
293:
286:
283:
282:
281:
279:
268:
266:
261:
259:
255:
250:
248:
243:
234:
232:
225:
221:
220:
219:
217:
213:
202:
201:
197:
193:
185:
180:
179:
178:
170:
168:
164:
160:
157:
153:
148:
146:
142:
132:
130:
129:Peter Ballard
126:
122:
118:
117:Later comment
114:
109:
105:
101:
99:
89:
87:
77:
74:
71:
66:
57:
48:
32:
29:
28:
19:
471:
468:Current Work
427:
424:Useful Links
408:
384:
371:
357:
350:
342:
337:
327:
324:
315:
306:
299:
290:
277:
274:
264:
262:
253:
251:
244:
240:
228:
222:
215:
208:
199:
189:
176:
149:
138:
124:
116:
112:
110:
106:
102:
95:
86:Semi-Protect
83:
75:
67:
63:
54:
30:
25:
302:Animal Farm
212:theologians
159:understands
18:User:Adpete
362:be in the
167:December 7
119:: in fact
88:articles.
493:Politics
147:- great.
568:Category
538:into it.
267:famous.
258:Claytons
198:saying,
156:everyone
549:Other
528:title.
514:Chess
410:Usenet
280:rule:
154:which
387:chess
152:words
16:<
502:Use
336:are
332:and
265:more
192:1977
163:2006
141:HTML
46:edit
453:or
372:all
338:not
570::
382:.
370:,
218:)
115:"
186:.
50:]
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.