joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:
It seems at this point we are just repeating the same
essential
arguments. Some
people, like Will think that NPA can override optimal encyclopedia content.
Others, like myself think that it cannot and should not. I, at least, find it
is a bit ridiculous to not link to the official webpage of a famous
person from
the person's article simply because the person has a highly negative opinion
about some Wikipedians. And I don't see this as substantially different as
deciding not to link to say, the New York Times if they published an
anti-Wikipedia editorial that attacked Essjay or published an article outing a
Wikipedia editor.
I can't speak for others, but that's not a fair summary of my position.
I think that removing material is a standard part of editing. I think
that the project has been improved by removing all kinds of material. I
think that links to self-published sites actively harassing Wikipedia
editors are not reliable sources and should be removed just as we remove
other unreliable sources. Doing so makes for optimal encyclopedia content.
"Highly negative opinions" are fine, harassment is not. They are
different things. The New York Times is not a self-published site, which
is all that my proposal addresses.
Will