Quoting Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net>et>:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, Will Beback wrote:
For some reason
MichaelMoore.com seems to be the
single example folks
are interested in. But we also need a policy that can address
non-celebrity blogs like ASM, forums like WP, wikis like ED, and any
other self-published website that actively engages in harassing
Wikipedia editor. Most of them are only usable as sources for themselves
anyway, so the collateral damage of re-categorizing them as unreliable
would be minimal.
However, that should not affect their use in talk pages, policy discussions,
etc. (Though I suppose that technically they are being used as sources for
themselves.)
I'm really tired of people saying "attack sites are unreliable sources for
use in articles" and then using that to ban their use in places other than
articles.
This doesn't seem to be nearly as much of a problem as the notion that attack
sites are a priori unreliable. Michael Moore's website for example is a
reliable source at minimum of what Moore thinks and likely of other things as
well. We almost should not lose sight of the fundamental strangeness of having
no links to
MichaelMoore.com on [[Michael Moore]].
That said, I can more easily understand a ban on linking to problematic sites
outside article space. In article space we may need them either for
referencing
or for external links. However, they don't serve nearly as useful a purpose on
talk pages or elsewhere. The focus of the project is and always should be
article space. What occurs in other spaces is only relevant in that context.