Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 126: Line 126:     
:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand".  I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
 
:: I don't think we need a policy to tell people that completely unrelated links shouldn't be put in (I'd also phrase that differently anyways something like "External links should be relevant to the subject of the article at hand".  I am very worried about cases by case reputability deciding. While obviosly at the end of the day every case is slightly different, we will need general rules. (So for example, it seems that some users have already asserted that the Talk Origins Archive is so bad that we can't even link to it, while CreationWiki can even be used as a source). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)
 +
:::I created a list to compile possible rules.[[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
 +
:Anyone opposed to bot restrictions? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 21:43, 6 March 2007 (EST)
 +
==Brainstorm List-Reputability Guidelines==
 +
*The site generally should not exist primarily for profit
 +
*Sites should have factual content
3,101

edits

Navigation menu