<p>I've noticed that, lately, we have gotten a few essentially one-line answers of the form "Look at <code>&lt;insert link&gt;</code>, where good details are provided."</p>

<p>I am wondering what, if anything, should be done to address such answers. For example, do we</p>

<ol>
<li>Let the voting mechanism handle them, </li>
<li>Address them in the FAQ, </li>
<li>Actively manage and discourage such answers, or </li>
<li>Do nothing (because I'm completely off-base here)?</li>
</ol>

<p><strong>My reason for asking is as follows.</strong></p>

<p>While, certainly there are many outstanding internet resources that provide better information than could be detailed in a short stats.SE post, it seems to me that the ephemeral nature of much of the web means that a lot of these answers (which may be highly upvoted and/or accepted) may turn out to be essentially useless in the future if the link gets broken. If the goal of stats.SE is to provide a centralized community for addressing statistical problems, then it seems incumbent on us to ensure that the content is as stable as possible.</p>

<p>My inclination would be to actively discourage such answers and suggest that an appropriate synopsis be placed in the body of the post with a link to the (potentially unstable) source. Likewise, for links to peer-reviewed references, answerers should be strongly encouraged to use stable links, as can be found on sites like <a href="http://www.projecteuclid.org" rel="nofollow">projecteuclid.org</a> and other online repositories.</p>

<p><strong>What do other community members think?</strong></p>
