Content deleted Content added
Tim Pierce (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 91:
:::{{u|Tim Pierce}} Wikipedia deleted nine links, no external links were deleted. The link rot logic fails miserably. Which is more stable? Nine deleted internal Wikipedia links or zero external links? [[User:LongTermWikiUser|LongTermWikiUser]] ([[User talk:LongTermWikiUser|talk]]) 18:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
::::Wikipedia is far less ''stable.'' There's no doubt about that. But nearly anything deleted or changed on Wikipedia can be reverted. That's the difference. [[User:Tim Pierce|—Tim Pierce]] ([[User talk:Tim Pierce|talk]]) 19:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
:::::{{u|Tim Pierce}}, Again Tim Pierce - you are indicating that it is now better to have 9 red-links (i.e. missing and prior Wikipedia web page links) in the APL article that previously pointed to '''REAL PERSONS''', companies and/or other topic areas -- than to have valid external links to those same persons/places/etc. which Wikipedia has deleted? '''A vacuum of information is preferable to external linking?''' These are actual people etc. who helped develop, shape, forge, influence or affect - APL in one way or another. '''Just allow all that to be wiped out of historical records for all-time?''' No external linking whatsoever? Those missing Wikipedia web pages cannot be reverted because they are gone from Wikipedia, apparently permanently.
::::: The Telegraph, UK 6:18PM BST 06 Aug 2014: '''Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales: "History is a human right."''' [[User:LongTermWikiUser|LongTermWikiUser]] ([[User talk:LongTermWikiUser|talk]]) 14:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
== Moderated Discussion at [[WP:DRN|Dispute Resolution Noticeboard]] ==
| |||