User talk:Wmtodd

Linking to 'blogs
G'day Wmtodd,

Wikipedia doesn't really have a policy on external links; we prefer to deal with things on a case-by-case basis rather than make hard and fast rules. The closest we come is a line in What Wikipedia is not, which explains that among the many things Wikipedia is not, we are not a web directory. We're under no obligation to link to a website just because it has some connection with the subject of an article. In extreme cases, this can lead to dozens or even hundreds of external links on an article, which would be clearly inappropriate (for example, on many game articles, webmasters are constantly adding links to the fansites they run for the free advertising). There's a guideline at External links that you might find useful.

Basically, articles can sometimes (often?) be improved by the addition of external links to provide more information on that article's subject. However, we have to keep a tight rein on what we link to, to avoid becoming a web directory or collection of indiscriminate links. The most important metric, as far as I'm concerned, is what purpose the link serves in an article. Does it provide more information for readers of the article? Or does it provide advertising for the linked website? If the link was added for the benefit of the website, not the article, then it should not stay.

And for what it's worth, the other 'blog listed wasn't there because it was inherently more worthy. It was there because I hadn't noticed it, and I have now removed it. I'm sorry if its presence led you to think we were discriminating against you alone. Hope this helps, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)