Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
200 lines (166 loc) · 5.58 KB

LINKING_GUIDELINES.md

File metadata and controls

200 lines (166 loc) · 5.58 KB

Linking Guidelines for Creative Tech Taxonomy

Overview

This document establishes rules for adding links to taxonomy entries to ensure consistency, authority, and usefulness while avoiding misrepresentation or promotional bias.

Core Principles

1. Authority Over Promotion

  • Prefer neutral, authoritative sources over promotional content
  • Avoid links that could be seen as endorsements of specific commercial services
  • When in doubt, choose comprehensive overviews over specific examples

2. Representation Accuracy

  • Links should represent the full scope of a topic, not just one perspective
  • Avoid linking to examples that users might mistake for "the" authority on a topic
  • Multiple links should cover different aspects (official, docs, community, etc.)

Link Categories & Rules

Specific Tools/Software/Frameworks

✅ DO:

  • Official website (primary)
  • Official documentation
  • GitHub repository (if open source)
  • Official community forum/Discord
  • Learning resources from the creators

❌ DON'T:

  • Third-party tutorials (unless officially endorsed)
  • Commercial course platforms
  • Personal blogs about the tool
  • Alternative/competing tools in the same entry

Example:

"TouchDesigner": {
  "links": {
    "Official Website": "https://derivative.ca/",
    "Documentation": "https://docs.derivative.ca/", 
    "Community": "https://forum.derivative.ca/"
  }
}

Programming Languages

✅ DO:

  • Official language website
  • Official documentation
  • Language specification/standard
  • Wikipedia (for historical context)

❌ DON'T:

  • Learning platforms (Codecademy, etc.)
  • Specific IDEs or editors
  • Tutorial sites

Broad Concepts/Fields/Methodologies

✅ DO:

  • Wikipedia (preferred for general concepts)
  • Academic/research institution overviews
  • Industry standard organization sites
  • Leave empty if no authoritative general source exists

❌ DON'T:

  • Commercial platforms claiming to represent the field
  • Specific examples or implementations
  • Personal blogs or opinion pieces
  • Startup/company sites claiming authority

Example:

"Data Visualization": {
  "links": {
    "Wikipedia": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_visualization"
  }
}

Hardware/Physical Objects

✅ DO:

  • Manufacturer's official site (if single manufacturer)
  • Wikipedia (for categories or standards)
  • Industry standards organizations
  • Technical specifications

❌ DON'T:

  • Reseller sites
  • Review sites
  • Comparison sites

Historical/Legacy Tools

✅ DO:

  • Wikipedia (primary choice)
  • Archive.org for historical documentation
  • Museum or preservation sites
  • Original manufacturer sites (if still available)

❌ DON'T:

  • Modern alternatives claiming to replace them
  • Nostalgia or fan sites
  • Commercial sites selling legacy versions

Emerging Technologies/Concepts

✅ DO:

  • Research institution pages
  • Standards body sites
  • Wikipedia (if established enough)
  • Leave empty if too new/undefined

❌ DON'T:

  • Startup sites claiming to define the space
  • News articles or hype pieces
  • Individual research papers (unless foundational)

Special Cases

When to Leave Links Empty

  • Very broad concepts without clear authority (e.g., "creativity")
  • Emerging topics still being defined
  • Categories that are organizational only (e.g., "Language Type")
  • Topics where all available links are promotional/biased

Multiple Links Strategy

When including multiple links, ensure they serve different purposes:

  • Official (primary resource)
  • Documentation (technical reference)
  • Community (support/discussion)
  • Wikipedia (neutral overview)
  • GitHub (source code)

Link Naming

  • Use descriptive names: "Official Website" not "Website"
  • Be specific: "API Documentation" not "Docs"
  • Indicate content type: "GitHub" not "Code"
  • Use consistent naming across entries

Quality Checklist

Before adding any link, ask:

  • Is this an authoritative source for this topic?
  • Does this represent the topic comprehensively?
  • Could users mistake this for "the" authority when it's just one example?
  • Is this neutral or promotional in nature?
  • Will this link still be relevant in 2-3 years?
  • Does this link serve a different purpose than the others already included?

Examples by Category

✅ Good Examples

"Processing": {
  "links": {
    "Official Website": "https://processing.org/",
    "Documentation": "https://processing.org/reference/",
    "GitHub": "https://github.com/processing/processing"
  }
}

"Machine Learning": {
  "links": {
    "Wikipedia": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning"
  }
}

"Arduino": {
  "links": {
    "Official Website": "https://www.arduino.cc/",
    "Documentation": "https://docs.arduino.cc/",
    "Community": "https://forum.arduino.cc/"
  }
}

❌ Bad Examples

"Creative Coding": {
  "links": {
    "Awesome Course": "https://creativecoding-course.com/",
    "Best Tutorial": "https://johnscodingblog.com/creative-coding"
  }
}

"AI in Art": {
  "links": {
    "ArtAI Startup": "https://artai-platform.com/",
    "My AI Art Gallery": "https://myaiart.gallery/"
  }
}

Review Process

  1. Draft links following these guidelines
  2. Review for authority - are these the best possible sources?
  3. Check for bias - do any links seem promotional?
  4. Test longevity - are these likely to remain stable?
  5. Validate representation - do these links serve the user's need to understand the topic?

These guidelines should be followed for all taxonomy content enhancement to maintain consistency and quality across the entire project.