>> About external links, the real question is: what is a good number of
>> links to have at the end of an article? Everyone will surely agree
>> that an article with 100 external links at the end is not ideal. What
>> people want from Wikipedia is a site where others have sifted through
>> the ch
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Gwern Branwen wrote:
So tell me, what failure rate would you find acceptable? You
apparently are not disturbed at a >90% failure rate to use external
links; would you be disturbed at 95%? At 99%? Before trying to put me
onto a slippery slope, explain where on the
2011/12/22 David Richfield :
> This article starts as a complaint about external links being moved to
> talk pages and never making it back to the main page, and then becomes
> a rant against deletionism.
No, it does not 'start' as that; the complaint is a subsection and
case-study into one deleti
This article starts as a complaint about external links being moved to
talk pages and never making it back to the main page, and then becomes
a rant against deletionism.
About external links, the real question is: what is a good number of
links to have at the end of an article? Everyone will sure
I have just completed and written up a little research project of mine:
http://www.gwern.net/In%20Defense%20Of%20Inclusionism#the-editing-community-is-dead-who-killed-it
Summary:
1. Talk pages are where references/links/citations go to die; less
than 10% ever make it back
2. In just the sampled e
