I'd like to add a comment here. I'm not comfortable with redirecting every empty SourceWatch article to the wikipedia, as Rob has been doing. I'm concerned that it could create a 'chilling effect' on people starting new SourceWatch articles. The point of wikifying names even when the article the name points to hasn't been created is to encourage people to click on that name, and create that article. By systematically redirecting all blank articles to their wikipedia equivalents, i believe that Rob is making casual users less likely to do that. Many casual users will surely click the name and read the wikipedia article, and if they have something to add will make some edits to that wikipedia article, instead of creating a new SourceWatch article. Even supposing such a user is inspired to create a SourceWatch article, he/she will have to have the extra expertise required to access and edit the redirect code. So it does seem to me that all these redirects are a bad idea, and dilute SourceWatch's value and distinctiveness. --[[User:Neoconned|Neoconned]] 04:58, 22 Dec 2004 (EST)
:One other point on this. One of the ways that SourceWatch is better than wikipedia, in my opinion, is that it has a systematically enforced referencing policy. Many of the articles linked to by the wikipedia redirects contain NO references. So the redirects also have the undesirable effect of appearing to dilute SourceWatch's referencing standards. --[[User:Neoconned|Neoconned]] 05:01, 22 Dec 2004 (EST)