Talk:Epistemic injustice

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Epistemology / Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Epistemology Ethics Social and political philosophy Feminism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I recently removed the red links from the See Also section. Red links detract from the quality of an article, and, especially in a See Also, they encourage the addition of non-notable additions to it. Unfortunately, an anonymous editor reverted my edit, leaving the edit summary, "Let's put those red links back. It's good to have a nudge to create those articles. MOS:SEEALSO is a helpful guideline, not an exceptionless rule, and in this case I think making an exception improves the article and helps readers find valuable information." I disagree that this "helps readers find valuable information"; red links have no notability check associated with them. Further, one can make the "nudge" argument for red links everywhere, so this is not a sufficient argument for including them here (else MOS:SEEALSO would not say that red links should not be in See Also sections). I do not agree that this article is so special that there should be an exception to this guideline. Anyone care to discuss this here? Cheers! Doctormatt (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Firstly, why on earth would you call my edit unconstructive and suggest, on my talk page, that I use the sandbox to play around? I gave a very clear and logical explanation for my edit. You gave no explanation for your revert. Please assume good faith, even with anonymous editors.

Secondly, the content in the lede stating potential precursors is not essential information and it is nearly verbatim with content in the origins section. It should therefore be removed as unnecessary and redundant. -- 129.242.129.238 (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted my edit. I think I must have misread your change. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]