On Nov 21, 2007 11:54 AM,
<joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Quoting Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net>et>:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:09:41 -0500, jayjg
<jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
BADSITES has proven to be an extremely convenient
way of distracting
attention from the real issues regarding offsite harassment and
non-encyclopedic links; I suspect it has worked even better than its
author ever dreamed it would.
Yes, I think you are right. We had an IP turn up out of the blue
yesterday and mark some current proposals as "rejected" due to
BADSITES, including one that was specifically motivated by the
rejection of BADSITES and seeks to do what the last ArbCom
suggested, namely write a workable policy.
Of course, it is incredibly important to WR that they retain the
ability to add links. Not because they want to, but because it
keeps the site in the public mind. Without the constant harping it
would have been forgotten by now as just another festival of stupid.
As far as I can tell, removing WR links has generally created more
drama than
allowing them to stay.
That's a pretty circular argument. I could as easily (and, in fact
more accurately) say that it is the loud restoration of such links
that intentionally creates the drama. The Robert Black case is a
perfect example. A sockpuppet deletes the link, then another
sockpuppet *conveniently shows up almost immediately* to revert,
crying "REVERT BLATANT CENSORSHIP!!!!!" A respected and established
admin quietly removes the link, then even more sockpuppets show up to
start edit-warring with admins over it. Finally, an actual established
editor and leader in the anti-BADSITES movement notices the hubbub,
and shows up to edit-war over the link. Then other editors say "OMG,
look at all the drama, it must be caused by that BADSITES proposal
again, I can't believe all those people were proponents of it, it's
such a bad idea!" Mission accomplished.
Drama plays into the hands of the anti-BADSITES proponents, just as
the whole strawman policy did in the first place. That's why they
insist on drama.
I'm confused, after drama was ongoing how did a "A respected and established
admin" quietly remove the link? That was just as much part of the edit-warring
and drama as another comment.
Furthermore, this isn't the only example. I'd love to see for example an
explanation of how the Making Lights fiasco was somehow a result of the
"anti-BADSITES proponents". (Incidentally, as someone who was and remains
strongly opposed to BADSITES I object to your characterization of such editors
as part of an amorphous "they" who desire "drama").