Does self-linking really degrade the Web?

Last week, Tim O'Reilly posted about self-linking as a journalistic practice, where one article on the Web refers to another story at the same site instead of an external link. For example, at BusinessWeek.com, a new feature article may link phrases and terms to other articles at Business Week for more explanation.

O'Reilly calls this a taxing proposition - he's saying the benefit of the Web is that it's an amalgamation of ideas, and that weak self-referential links at these sites can degrade the Web if they are just trying to generate traffic, and avoid links with more robust information.

I happen to disagree with the sentiment. I'm not sure about the motivations behind the self-linking, whether they are purely to increase traffic, but I liken those links to how a magazine refers to previous stories for more enlightenment on the topic. Yes, it is good for business, and maybe even insular, but if an article sends you to a previous story on a topic for more explanation, they are also saying that they believe their explanation is more worthwhile and keeps you at the site. In journalism, an external link says: the other guys are doing this better than we are, trust them and not us.

I see this concept at work on my own articles for Computerworld. I wrote about WAN optimization, and referred to back-ups for virtual servers. Now, there may be more definitive explanations for back-ups somewhere on the Web, and maybe linking to those would be better for the Web overall, but referring to the internal article as an explanatory link says I think Computerworld, in general, is a trusted, definitive source. It says we know what we're talking about.

I don't think this is a new concept in journalism. There's also a reliability factor. Articles at Computerworld go through a fact checking process, they are well researched. The minute I link to some other guy's explanation of back-ups for virtual servers, I am saying I trust that source definitively when I don't. I would need to verify the legitimacy of those links first.

I don't think this is the same as a gadget blog referring to the review at another site - a gadget blog is not really trying to do hardcore journalism, they are just trying to make you aware of the new gadget. They may occasionally do a review, at which time they will likely refer to the internal post where they announced the gadget's availability (not some other blog), and that is perfectly legit.

And let me even go so far as to say: journalism has always been a bit insular. Blogging is more community driven, which is why this post refers to O'Reilly and not just a CW post.