| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| '''Anchor text''' is the specialized word or phrase that you place in a link ''instead of the name of the target article''. You write it this way: | | ''See [[pipe trick]] and [[wiki linking]] for now.'' |
|
| |
|
| :<nowiki>[[real name of article|the anchor text that the reader sees]]</nowiki>
| | ''Somewhere was a long scholarly essay on the semantics of '''anchor text''' and where to use such texts that were not the [[page name]], and where not to.'' |
|
| |
|
| Why would you do this instead of writing [[real name of article]], and using that real name in a sentence? Several reasons are often cited:
| | ''It was probably hidden by [[sysop vandalism]] on [[Meta-Wikipedia]] or wherever it was. If someone has a copy of any good treatment of this topic, link to it or restore it here, thanks. For instance [http://www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Taxonomy en: Metaweb: Talk:Taxonomy] includes the claim that:'' |
|
| |
|
| *The name of the article is in singular noun or verb form, and you need to use the word in its plural or conjuncted or adverb or adjective form. This is not usually controversial.
| | :anchor text that differs from the name of the article is also probably a bad idea. A strict discipline of requiring [[noun phrase]]s and [[verb phrase]]s that are used as links, to actually be article names or [[redirect]]s, tends to force the language of articles to reflect the actual terminology used in the field, which is to the advantage of readers to use. |
| *The article is in a subspace, e.g. you want to say just "[[Consumerium:faction|faction]]" when linking to [[Consumerium:faction]]; This is the most acceptable use and is almost never controversial.
| |
| *The article is badly named. In this case you should [[refactor]] and rename it everywhere, using a [[redirect]] from the old bad name to the new good name
| |
| **The article uses Inappropriate Capitalization Of Abstracts. Though the "I" doesn't matter, the C, O, and A, do, so renaming to [[inappropriate capitalization of abstracts]] is advised. This is the simplest bad naming. Only if there is an essay, paper, book or theory with only one very exact definition, should any abstract concept appear with uppercase letters in it. [[WikiWord]]s very often teach people bad habits in this regard!
| |
| *You actually want to make some statement about what the article means in the context of your sentence.
| |
| **One ''[[TIPAESA|position]]'' on this is that you are actually defying what everyone who helped to write the article, says it means. If you have something to say about that subject, you should say it in that article. You should not try to twist the meaning of the article in your sentence.
| |
| Another ''[[TIPAESA|position]]'' on this is that it's reasonable only in a [[policy]] statement, where you are assuming a point of view that is already heavily debated, and won't be taken as personal statement.
| |
| | |
| There are several excellent reasons to <strong>avoid anchor text</strong> and to desire [[many redirects]] instead:
| |
| | |
| *A [[redirect]] is much easier to track use of, than an anchor text. It's important to know how many people for instance prefer to talk about [[green guild]]s vs. [[sustainable trade]]s vs. [[eco-syndicalism]], even if all three target (perhaps temporarily) the same article on all three. If it turns out that more than half the links are to "sustainable trades" then maybe that needs a separate article? You can't discover this easily if people write <nowiki>[[eco-syndicalism|sustainable trades]]</nowiki>. So please don't. If one phrase is equivalent to another, or one article is about several topics, create redirects to them all, and avoid using anchor texts.
| |
| *Each [[redirect]] is a fairly blunt statement that "this means the same as that, or can't be understood except in the context of that". Such important statements should not be made for [[Consumerium:We|everyone involved]] by just one person, unless it's a clearly personal statement in a [[user page]] or [[talk page]]. Although, if you disagree with the assumption that [[Consumerium:We]] is really "everyone involved", then, you can change it, because no one person owns ''this'' policy, there is inertia to links, and you shouldn't ask others to do this if you yourself can avoid making such assumptions. If "everyone involved" is really a good phrase to use, and is not misleading then why does [[everyone involved]] not already redirect to [[Consumerium:We]] ? Think about that.
| |
| *It's extremely common and desirable to redirect an abstract concept to some specific theory with a proper name, if there is no competing explanation of that concept. This allows for later creation of an abstract concept article to explain how several theories compete. It's easy to see where this might be required: if there are lots of links to [[social democracy]] and fewer to [[Social Democrat]], but the former redirects to the latter, that suggests that there is perhaps a need to discuss social democracy outside the context of what a [[Social Democrat]] is today, and the history that group accepts. This is one way to balance [[neutral point of view]] of [[social democracy]] with [[sympathetic point of view]] of [[Social Democrat]]s by thems[[elf|elves]]. <-- notice the trickery of anchor texts!
| |
| | |
| Eventually [[Metaweb]] plans to create [[semantic web]] software to process the [[GFDL text corpus]] directly. At that point a lot of redirects will be very desirable, and a lot of sentences that use the real names of articles as simple [[noun phrase]]s (usually concepts) and simple [[verb phrase]]s (usually [[action]]s) and more complex phrases (like some [[advice]]), will be immensely useful in figuring out how these articles are used, and which to write next. Lots of odd anchor text on the other hand just encourages laziness in writing and says much less useful, and much less collective.
| |