On 5/30/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 31/05/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard
<dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31/05/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Damaging the articles and
Wikipedia"?
> How would you characterise the removal of
all links to
>
nielsenhayden.com from encyclopedia articles? I'd certainly call that
> an accurate description of the result.
Will has apologized for that and has said he
overreacted at the shock
of seeing his name on the site. It has now been taken down. That kind
of blog was never part of the ArbCom's definition of an "attack site,"
and the speed with which the owner removed the name shows that it's a
responsible site.
However:
1. he sincerely blocked it at the time as an attack site.
2. BADSITES was always a ridiculous expansion of the ArbCom ruling.
3. As were all the people who act like it while denying its name.
The point remains: letting the idea that some sites must have all
mention removed from Wikipedia *leads directly to damaging the
encyclopedia*, because *in practice* people can't be trusted not to
have attacks of stupid over it.
People can have attacks of stupid over any policy. Every guideline,
practise, whatever, that we spell out has to be applied with common
sense in ways we can't always spell out, and so long as the definition
of an attack site is clear enough (and maybe we should clarify it), I
can't see it being problematic. If from time to time it's misused,
it'll get straightened out soon enough if everyone's acting in good
faith.