-----Original Message-----
From: David Gerard [mailto:dgerard@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 04:41 PM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 19/10/2007, Eugene van der Pijll <eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
Jimmy Wales schreef:
> The only real question is where and how to
draw the line, but we are
> actually fortunate in this regard: there are virtually no borderline
> cases as an empirical matter.
They may be a minority, but most of the recent
discussion was about
borderline cases. The Nielsen Hayden blog, the WikipediaReview Signpost
article, the Michael Moore site.
Perhaps you don't hink these are borderline, but in each of these cases
I've seen people arguing on both sides.
And whether naming
antisocialmedia.net in [[Judd Bagley]] should count
as a personal attack on the people attacked by that site, even though
the site itself is named openly in the NYT etc. as relevant. There was
an arbitration case about this.
The problem is the cases in the middle. What overrides NPOV?
- d.
_______________________________________________
I still don't understand what NPOV has to do with this. A link to
edit a Wikipedia user's page is as shameful for MIchael Moore as any
excess of ours. In a way, linking to it puts him in a false light,
displaying petty bullying.
Fred
Huh? How is it a false light? If his website has petty bullying up then he's
engaging in petty bullying. There's an inherent difficulty in saying that an
article would normally benefit from a link but we aren't going to put
it there.
That's damaging to the encyclopedia due to an application of some peoples POV.
That's almost the definition of not being NPOV.