We are still actively working on the spam issue.
Where should we draw the line between redlinks ("Hopefully someone will write an article about this topic!") and offsite links ("here's more info on this topic")?
- I think we've addressed it in Help:Editing#Creating pages of what page will be worthy of our standards. And about linking in Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor.
By my reckoning, anything that a /g/entooman has an opinionated angle on, or anything that can be crassly simplified deserves a page on our wiki. Boring/Obvious/Clearly Defined stuff like MMORPG or Zork are probably better off either unlinked, or linked to an appropriate page (e.g. Wikipedia). /g/ents may have something to say about them, but I reckon it's unlikely to be a fleshed-out article anytime soon.
Furthermore, if an externally linked article later becomes a fleshed out article, it's easy to relink to the IGW article. In the meantime, the externally linked article will let anons learn more, whereas a redlink will stop them in their tracks.
- Okay, I'll address this later in Help:Editing, if you think redlinks should be eradicated, *but* it's not worthy of the standards, make an interwiki link or external links instead.
- EDIT: See Help:Style#Hypertext metaphor, point 3. 10:54, 26 February 2016 (EST)