Will Beback wrote:
"Being mean" is OK, harassing is not.
That's the case even if you're the
person being harassed. If you're not clear on the distinction between
criticism and harassment then maybe we should have a review.
Yes, I understand the difference, thanks. My point in saying that was
that I think some of what people are considering sufficient cause to
remove links does not meet what a DA would consider criminal harassment.
And other people might consider it a public service. One man's terrorist
is another man's freedom fighter. It depends on your point of view.
Regardless, you dodged the meat of my point entirely. You may go back
and substitute "harassment" for "being mean" and I'll still stand
by it.
No part of NPOV requires that we link to the
self-published sites of
folks who are trying to improperly affect Wikipedia editing.
Well gosh, if a policy didn't anticipate and rule out your particular
new proposal, then your proposal must be fine. Sorry I got all confused.
It does
require that we include all significant viewpoints, but can you give an
example of a significant point of view that is only sourceable to
someone who is actively harassing Wikipedia editors?
I can give significant points of view that are best sourced to people
who have committed genocide, Will. That somehow seems much more
important. To me, anyhow.
William
--
William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_Pietri