Wikipedia talk:Red link

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Do red links motivate people to write articles?[edit]

I once read a research paper claiming that there was evidence that red links motivate people to start an article. I think it was written by Dr Spinnelis but I don't remember the link anymore. Has there been any research on that? Red links are unsighty and make the articles hard to read though... Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Red_link#References. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you dear! Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • They're considerably less unsightly than many of the content warnings and exhortations that populate pages, that are also intended to elicit edits. --Lquilter (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Interesting observation but there's a problem: red links are in the main text, while the various content warnings usually differentiate themselves visually from the style used in the main text, for example by using colored boxes or by using smalled font size or superscripts. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Redlinks in infoboxes -- link to discussion[edit]

There is a discussion about redlinks in infoboxes at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Redlinks in infoboxes – proposed guidance. – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-08-13/Op-ed[edit]

Hello everyone- people may be interested to read the Signpost opinion piece about red links which was published today. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In my view the opinions expressed in this tabloid-style essay seriously lack balance. Much as I like the colour red, I hope this is not the start of an ill-considered campaign to spread red-link graffiti across Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • @J Milburn: Perhaps you would be willing to restate below, succinctly and in a less inflammatory manner, the cogent parts of your campaign for more red links. Then it might be possible to have some rational discussion and allow more room for viewpoints that may not echo your own. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I am not interested. You are now willfully misrepresenting my view, and doing your best to make me look like a moron. In my piece, I am arguing for a particular point of view (specifically, that our guideline on red links, which is a good one, is being ignored). You have made quite clear what you think of me, my views and this guideline. I am not going to restate my case- that clearly puts me on the defensive. It is you who doesn't like the guideline, so it is you who has to state your case for changing it. J Milburn (talk) 08:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
It was certainly not my intention to misrepresent your views and I apologize if that is what I have done. I felt you misrepresented my views and were attempting to make people who feel red links should be kept to a minimum seem like bad people, or at least people clinically suffering from some sort of pathology. Some of your supporters felt empowered by your essay to liken people who don't agree with you to vandals. I had the impression that it was you who was trying to change general guidelines by legitimizing the idea that red links should be encouraged everywhere and people who didn't like them should be ridiculed. I'm sorry if you wish to withdraw and not clarify the matter. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I accept that the use of the word erythrophobia could come across as an unjustified attempt at medicalisation, and I certainly accept that my style was colloquial (though I think "tabloid" is taking it a bit far)- I was writing for a Wikipedia editor audience, not an academic or business one! I tried to include arguments against red links and my (brief) responses to them- if you feel that I chose to ignore the best arguments against red links, then I'm sorry; I could only include those I'd come across. To be clear, though, I was certainly not trying to change guidelines by suggesting that "red links should be encouraged everywhere", as the guidelines are already clear that red links are to be encouraged. You could even describe the entire piece as a public and verbose reminder of what our guidelines are. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
(e/c) Your article was well written and skillfully designed to catch attention. Perhaps "tabloid" was taking it a bit far, and maybe I overreacted at what appeared to be an opening of the flood gates. There are certainly what I consider substantive counter views to some of your arguments. Still, I'm not against red links as such if they are used judiciously. When it comes to actual practice you and I might not be that far apart. I'm sorry if I upset you unduly. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest that both of you back down a little bit. We are all here in the spirit of AGF, after all. Signpost articles are not supposed to be neutral, and not neutral is a half-serious definition of an op-ed anyway. No need to criticize JM for writing a very nice if biased op-ed (with which I do agree). I do think it should be linked here from see also, just like an average essay would. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

added quote box[edit]

"Most new articles are created shortly after a corresponding reference to them is entered into the system"

The collaborative organization of knowledge, Communications of the ACM

Does anyone have this article? Can you please email it to me? Thank you.

Thewhitebox (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)