Let’s put aside « link posts » (like this one) for a minute or two, the time required to read this article. Recently, I noticed that links in published content vary a lot from one author to another. Some bloggers or writers use many links, while others barely include any. I thought that was fascinating, and I started thinking about my link usage.

For example, M.G. Siegler, a well-known writer on Medium, uses links in his writing. Quite a lot, actually. One prime example is in «Oh yeah, Intel. Nice! ». Another example is from another well-known author, John Gruber, in « Apple Holds Up ProtonVPN App Update for Two Days Over the Phrase ‘Challenging Governments’». On the opposite, an article like this one, there is no link to be found. Here is another example.

In the digital age, the Internet was designed to be a cross-referencing platform, a vast mesh of knowledge. This principle still holds true. Links are not just random connections; they stem from thorough research on a subject, a topic, or an event. They require time and effort to gather, read, grade, curate, comment, and store for future reference. The process of handling links is a valuable investment in the quality of your content.

Personally, I’m a « put as many links as possible » type of guy. I would argue that references add value to an article besides the basic obligation of referring to sources. Links can refer to contextual information. They can also help support some justification for a given stance on a subject. They can help the reader better position an article with others on the same subject. Links are powerful.

Admittedly, there is a risk that readers might be drawn away by the allure of referenced articles, potentially leaving mine behind. However, I firmly believe that the value added by links outweighs this risk. I appreciate your commitment to engaging with this article if you’re still with me. Thank you for your time.