William Pietri wrote:
He's writing about his area of expertise, and
that's clearly pertinent
to his biography, in the same way his writing a book or an article would
be. Failure to link to his blog when we mention that it exists violates
WP:V. Removing all mention of the blog would be a failure to mention a
relevant fact in an article because we don't like what the article
subject says; that violates WP:NPOV.
Either one goes against the animating spirit of the project:
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given
free access to the sum of all human knowledge.
That's not "all human knowledge we like" or "all human knowledge we
think you're ready to handle". Wikipedia should not be in the business
of making moral judgments about the topics we cover: that's the reader's
job.
If you would like to propose a policy where we do not link to any source
that contains discussion of things that might be defamatory, by all
means propose it. But I strongly believe it does not flow from the core
policies or our shared principles, so I think it will have to be a new
policy.
Indeed. The more I see the struggles connected with BADSITES the more
I'm convinced that there is a handful of people incapable of taking a
mature and nuanced view of the issue. Even with breaches of privacy
there could be cases where revealing an identity _may_ be justified,
such as when a person is using a pseudonym to mask a serious conflict of
interest. (A tobacco company executive claiming that smoking is good
for you?)
There are points and principles where there is a strong common
consesnsus. Nobody supports inappropriate breaches of privacy, or
defamation, or personal attacks. Despite that the majority are capable
of seeing that the serious misbehaviour of a few should not justify
extreme restrictions on everybody's freedoms to do things. That's the
essence of assuming good faith. Does it take so much subtlety to
understand that good faith is not dependent on the reader's willingness
to feel injury.
Ec