Doc is right about links: "[T]hey're useful. It's not much more complicated than that."

For all the bafflegab about incumbents and signallers and broadcast economics, linking is a great tool for writers.

For those of us who blog as communicators, not incumbents or signallers or economic actors, that's what really matters.

Doc also links to Robert Anderson, who damns links by criticizing excessive linkage. The same could be said of overeating, but that doesn't make the case for starvation.

In my very first newspaper column about blogging, published four years ago this month, I described linking as "writing in 3-D."

Beyond the rush of publishing in real time, blogging adds an extra element to the process of composing your thoughts. It's like writing in 3-D. The ability to link to other sites from within your own work can enrich whatever you have to say with context or counterpoint.

Linking also brings value to your readers by making your blog a portal into a much broader web experience. It makes your blog part of a conversation, not a lecture.

It's called internetworking for a reason.

Comments

[Sally]

OK, but I think you'd concede that some linking is over the top. (Hat tip: Michael Berube.)

[Jim Caserta]

I consider links to be references, or background info. Unless you're an expert, reading a scientific journal article or other technical document is hard to do if you have to search for something in a reference. HTML solves that. I'm glad the NYT has started to add links to background either of a person or thing. They're useful!