content: the fact of a connection between two pages/ideas/concepts is as important as the concepts themselves. Therefore: LinkMore
Also, using links to implement InformationHiding
can aid us to ImproveSignalAndReadability
links are content
Absolutely. That was one of the founding principles of Hypertext that people miss now. -- KyleBrown
Recently I've caught myself typing WordsSmashedTogetherLikeSo
in non-hyper media and getting quite agitated when no link appears. It just seems so natural
to link to another page ... oh well, come the revolution all
media will be hyper. -- KeithBraithwaite
Me too. I also always reach for EditText as soon as I spot an error anywhere; or feel something has been missed out. Of course, there isn't one.
As an aside -- there's a great science-fiction novel by Michael P. Kube-Mc
Dowell whose main character is a "hyperlinker". All he does is create links betweeen masses of information in a "hyperlibrary". I personally think that would be a dream job... -- KyleBrown
- That's not ringing a bell, which novel was that?
One of the stories of the Foundation series (by IsaacAsimov
) focuses upon the librarians, whose jobs are to make links...
It was bound to happen: we now can't use initials as shorthand on this page. Where's Kent when we need him? -- kb
As proved by e.g. physics, great many (all?) things can be described in terms of their mutual relations - which describes the relations at the same time. :) -- PanuKalliokoski
Every word in the dictionary is defined by other words in the dictionary. -- EricHodges
QuickSurvey: Do people believe in this more than the converse (Links cannot be Content)?
Please use RealName
- I believe links are content: DavidLiu, ...
- I believe links are not content: ...
- I'm sitting on the fence: ...
Intentions to collaborate can be the key to getting more information
, meaning adding information, then links to external sites are content as well.
It is consistent with the fact that most papers are published with a list of references at end.
The fact that new information is added does not mean the linked information has good quality. But the authors do have the intent to include links to good and relevant information.
If readers are uncomfortable with links included in a wiki page, they can ask questions regarding suitability, quality, etc and may even be request a summary of the linked information (e.g. an external article), but the original contributor is under no obligation to provide a detailed response, especially if it was felt that the requestor has no intention to collaborate on the subject being queried.
Put it another way, if the person requesting further details has shown interests (e.g. bringing out specific sections within external links for discussion), then it starts to suggest maybe some genuine interest exists.
Until there is a better CommunityResponse?
, and a better environment for collaboration, I do not think it is reasonable to ask busy people to explain this, clarity that to any great depth. At the moment there are significant CollaborationLeadsToDiscouragement
moments and we need to go back to the fundamentals.
Please start a LinksAreContentDiscussion
page so we do not create more ThreadMess
. Personally I think ThreadMess
, if done in a respectful manner, is better than no collaboration.
Moved from TheAdjunct...
, then there is need to consider whether a proposed WikiName
enriches the CommunityWiki
of other pages that refers to it.
Other examples of bad names:
- I was taken aback many months ago when someone edit one of the pages listed above and drew my attention to it. Many workplaces have policies that may view use of "extreme languages" unacceptable. I did not say anything then. Now that I have been honored with the first recipient of NonExcellent? label I think I should give credits where they due -- dl
BTW the NonExcellent?
label itself is NonExcellent?
, as it is negative and acts as a disincentive to complying with PlayNiceBehavior
. See MeatBall BarnStar
as an alternate mechanism.
LinksAreContent can become An OverextendedArgument
When a page has a huge list of BackLink
s, then LinksAreContent
breaks down for the BackLink
page. "Page A" leads to "Page B" type information can be asymmetrical, especially when the meaning of the link from "Page A" to "Page B" stops at the PageName
Still, it can be interesting for the reader to have access to a page of "entirely unrelated topic". My opinion: creating such "incidental links" for that purpose alone is worthwhile as it promotes "wiki reading" alternatives to exclusive use of RecentChanges.
list can be a case of ExcessiveOverloading
(note "Name not content" link example used here). One way of solving the DisinformationOfExcessiveInformation?
problem is perhaps to create a ReverseRoadmap?
, where the "From Where" links can be categorised and listed in a better order. (This paragraph is a ThinkingOutLoud
There is also such a thing as tenuous links of limited value. At some point linking can devolve into SixDegreesOfKevinBacon