On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, but that was my point. :) As it is now,
anything from
MSNBC.com to
CNN.com to Wikipedia Review to Making Light to ED to
whitehouse.gov could
theoretically be an attack site. I don't think it's appropriate for any one
person to make the decision. Anyone can put forth a site as one, but if
people don't support it...
That's an unhelpful slippery slope argument. For what it's worth,
here's how I would define an "attack site": "a website that regularly
publishes, or a large portion of which includes, the purported
personal details of editors (unless those editors have themselves
explicitly revealed the information); personal attacks; defamation;
personal threats; or posts that constitute, report the results of,
threaten, or incite harassment, stalking, cyberstalking, invasion of
privacy, or violence."
Now, given that definition, I can't see why anyone reasonable would
object to a "no links to attack sites" rule of thumb. We don't even
link to sites that engage in copyright violation. Even when we only
*suspect* copyright violation, we err on the side of caution.
Increasing the readership of websites that encourage people to stalk
and harass Wikipedians, or that try to "out" them, or that publish
defamation, is obviously a much dodgier thing to do than linking to a
copyvio.