@BillDubuque why are you assuming I have a problem with the answer? I did not suggest to downvote nor to delete; I was trying to understand if it's ok. AS Xander said, this practice it's usually a red flag.
@SineoftheTime Because this room is generally meant for handling problematic posts. A handful of (pertinent) links is generally not a red flag (if it were many of my posts would be flagged, and they never have been). Links can be abused in various ways, but the count of links is generally not correlated with such abuse. You still have not explained why you are concerned about a post having a handful of links.
In fact I would argue that most posts have far too few links, e.g. logical gaps (unsupported claims) that could be filled by linking to proofs (here or elsewhere) and lack of illuminating links to generalizations, specializations, etc. Dynamic linking is one of the main advantages the web has over static books, but many authors don't take advantage of this great gain in organizational power.
The site could be greatly enriched if many users stopped wasting time answering the same routine exercises ad infinitum and instead spent time organizing the site by adding such links. But, alas, SE gamification doesn't reward such organizational effort so such effort is rare.
@BillDubuque A lot of links in a post is a red flag. That post raised all kinds of red flags for me. But a little due diligence shows that the post is not a problem, and is actually doing a reasonably good job of discussing the material. A "red flag" does not means something which requires deletion or closure or whatever---only further investigation.
But not that I am using the phrase "red flag" in the vernacular sense of "something which initially looks problematic." I am not using it in the technical sense of "you should have raised a red spam flag on it", or anything like that.
I do agree that the answer probably shouldn't have come up in here, but I suppose that I would rather have a transparent discussion about what may or may not be problematic than to shut down the discussion.
@XanderHenderson We'll have to disagree about that. As I mentioned - my opinion is that the generally posts should have far more links than they currently have. But that will likely never occur due to the gamification of the system - which strongly encourages lower-quality FGITW posts. The problem is so severe that high-quality posts (and actions) look so different than the masses that they raise suspicions. Gamification is the root of all evil.
@BillDubuque Additionally , there is a clear connection between the score of the answerer and the upvote-behaviour of the users , in the case of a high-rep user almost independent from the quality of the answer.
@Peter Sometimes true, sometimes not, e.g. I often write answers which strive to show how elementary topics generalize. These take more effort to understand. Lazy readers won't invest that effort and will instead look for the answer they can understand most quickly. The rep of the answerer plays little role in such (ditto for answers posted while the Q is on the front page vs. later posted more lowly exposed answers)
