Delirium wrote:
It sounds like what you want is a rule that certain
types of sources
should not be used due to concerns *other* than their reliability. So
why not say that?
-Mark
Folks often say that removing links violates NPOV. But a much larger
effect on POV comes when editors are harassed off of Wikipedia because
of content-related edits or decisions. When a coherent group (gang,
religious sect, etc) succeeds in driving away all interested editors who
disagree with them then the NPOV of the topic suffer tremendously, far
more than from the mere absence of a single hot link.
We say "comment on the edits, not the editors", which is always a good
idea,, but of course it's editors who create and modify the content. If
the editors on one side of an issue are harassed off the project
unfairly then the project's content will become less neutral. It's
gaming the system from the outside, just like tilting the pinball
machine. Even though it's "outside" of Wikipedia, external harassment
still affects the contents, potentially very profoundly.
Is the project poorer without a hotlink to
MichaelMoore.com, or without
the contributions of THF? For all his faults, I'd say THF has
contributed infinitely more content than an external link does and if it
were a matter of THF vs the link then I'd go with THF anyday. We can
always add the link back after THF leaves (as all editors eventually do)
or the harassment ends.
W.