Daniel Ehrenberg wrote:
We really
don't want links to this particular site
because of its agenda.
Fred
Well, then that's just because of its POV. We link to
POV sites.
I still think it's a bit sketchy, and things like this may hurt
Wikipedia's credibility. If, for example, the initial version of the
Martin Luther King article was taken from a KKK site (under the GFDL),
people would be rightfully skeptical of our editorial stance if it
said at the bottom "this article incorporates text originally from [a
KKK site]". This seems likewise a bad idea to me, since it makes it
far too easy for people, seeing the cited source, to simply dismiss
Wikipedia as highly biased, even if the text has in fact been NPOVed
in the meantime.
An article about MLK by the KKK would not last long. Similarly, the
best thing to do with these Serbian history items is to edit them
severely, Forbidding the article in the first place accomplishes
nothing except getting people upset. The energy is better spent
editing. Wikipedia's credibility is not much of an issue when something
doesn't last here for very long.
Ec