On 22/11/2007, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
Having followed some (but by no means all) of the
interminable
debate, it seems to me it all boils down to three things:
1. If a link in article space is allegedly non-encyclopedic,
it needs to be assessed according to WP:V or WP:RS or whatever
the sourcing guideline du jour is.
2. If a link in non-article space serves to harass a Wikipedia
editor, it needs to be dealt with in accordance with WP:NPA,
which at times has (and IMO certainly should) treat such links
just as seriously as on-wiki harassment.
3. If an off-wiki page, not linked to from article space
or from non-article space, harasses a Wikipedia editor,
it should either be ignored, or dealt with off-wiki. Nothing
we do on-wiki can punish an off-wiki harasser, or force the
off-wiki harasser to remove their harassing words from the net.
3. is the one that IMO is most needed. The question is, of course:
will it stand?
What we truly do not need -- which BADSITES promoted,
but which
some people keep promoting under various guises
These things being considered close enough to call the same by some,
but different enough not to by others ...
-- is the notion
that off-wiki harassment of a Wikipedia editor is such an
uber-mortal sin that we should summarily ban all links to the
harassing page and/or the harassing site and/or sites that link
to the harassing page or the harassing site. These extreme
sanctions, which involve trampling on various other cherished
Wikipedia policies and ideals, are what people were so upset
about with BADSITES. But the fact that people keep taking about
(and exercising) similarly extreme sanctions is why BADSITES,
despite protestations to the contrary, is still alive, whether
under that name or some other.
Yes, we need to protect our editors and save them from harm.
But we don't need to destroy the encyclopedia in order to save them.
Indeed. <-- personal opinion bit
- d.