charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com wrote:
I note you
haven't come up with a name you prefer.
In any case, I and others will continue to refer to it as BADSITES
when it's indistinguishable in practice.
You can't hinder discussion of something by trying to stop people
using the names for things.
I thought I was saying that someone can easily hinder discussion by Humpty-Dumtyfying it:
saying "when I say X, X means what I mean by it".
"...because there are things on them that some people don't like" ... you
know, this is stupefyingly vague. It could refer to anything from an outing of a
Wikipedian to blasphemy.
Hi, Charles. Really, I'm not trying to be difficult here. My vagueness
there was intentional. Partly because I'm trying to refer to a range of
possible policies. Partly because I feel that what has gone on is
similarly murky. And partly because I get the impression that some
people really desire to suppress discussion of things on an "I don't
like it" basis.
Again, I'm glad to use a better term. I've struggled to find one.
Saying something like "link-banning policies" doesn't cover it, as I
have no issue with behavior-based link banning like we do with spammers.
Even "content-based link-banning policies" doesn't cover it, because at
least some people propose banning a fair bit more than a particular
page. Really, I'm not even sure that links are quite the issue, as I get
the impression that bringing up certain topics is treated as evidence of
crimethink, or at least giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and
similarly worthy of suppression.
But for me, this started out with the BADSITES proposal. Although the
policy has evolved, I feel like there's an ancestral relationship with
today's drama, which is why I used the term to refer to the sheaf of
related policies. I'm happy to adopt a better term, and would welcome
suggestions. In the future, I'll try to be more careful with the term. I
hope other people will be similarly aware in their reading.
Oh, though, I forgot the timely reminders that this is
apparently all about "banning". I should quite like to have such a
"banning" happen, so that the ArbCom could throw the book at some admin who was
very clearly acting in a high-handed manner.
That's a pleasant surprise. I just peeked back in at the "Attack sites"
arbitration after a few weeks, and it seems to be headed in a direction
that I'm more comfortable with. Last I looked it was 2-1 in favor of
banning people for linking to particular sites. I'm glad to see it has
shifted.
Thanks,
William