The strategy to linking
Kudos to a NY Times columnist for not only incorporating links into his columns, but knowing when and where not to link. While some would argue that it’s impossible to be too liberal with your linking, I disagree:
In choosing his links, he tries to stay specific and useful. “As a reader, I can’t stand the links where if the link is ‘Barack Obama,’ and you click the link and it’s Barack Obama’s official campaign page. It’s useless because any sentient person who knows how to use the Internet doesn’t need that link to figure out how to get a motherlode of information about a proper name in a piece of journalism…So the feeling I’ve always had is let’s get the links as specific as possible instead of something generic.â€
There is an art to linking. It is just another way you have to prove yourself when writing a blog – good writing, interesting ideas, relevant linking.
Also, there are good reasons for not linking. Especially when the site referred to will show flashy ads or if you don’t wish to give undue publicity to a writer’s opinion.
Also, linking can clutter up a blog post. Having two or three nonobvious links will stand out if you don’t link to more.
One thing NYT does which is awful is generated links not to specific articles but to categories or people in the news (and just link you to a search query). Then again, NYT has been giving us a lot of free content; more power to them for trying new things (although that Apple ad still gets on my nerves).
Generally, though, the presumption should be to link rather than not to.
One more thought. It’s really easy for even helpful/legitimate links to distract the reader from the point you’re making. If the links themselves have value but interfere with your goal of imparting your narrative objectives, just remove the sucker!