[WikiEN-l] Another conflict regarding linking to "attack sites"

[Stephen Bain]

On 4/26/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Matt, the Mongo decision said:
>
> *"Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are
> exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds
> for blocking," and
>
> *"A website that engages in the practice of publishing private
> information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will
> be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from
> Wikipedia pages under any circumstances."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Outing_sites_as_attack_sites
>
> Two of the arbitrators involved in that decision (Fred and Jay)
> confirmed during a recent request for clarification that the rulings
> applied to any attack site, not just to ED.

What Fred initially said was:

"The decision in MONGO is intended to apply to harassment of
individuals on sites which are not making a good faith effort to
engage in legitimate criticism of Wikipedia or those associated with
it, simply smearing Wikipedia and its users. Sites which make some
attempt to engage in legitimate criticism such as Wikipedia Review
present a different situation and should probably be addressed, not by
a blanket prohibition, but on what is being linked to."

But then people didn't understand this, so he said:

"Obviously any ambiguity is seen as an invitation to excuse personal
attacks. Linking to any site which attacks any Wikipedia user in an
aggressive way is inappropriate. Which is not to say that WP:BADSITES
is not a BADIDEA, nor that criticism is not welcomed."

I agree with Fred.

I have seen noone disagree to the proposition that linking to personal
attacks in order to promulgate those personal attacks is just as bad
as making those personal attacks personally. Similarly, noone
disagrees that linking to pages disclosing personal information in
order to propagate that personal information is just as bad as
disclosing the personal information personally.

There are just some people concerned that this is being approached
with such an unnecessarily heavy hand that, for example, a Signpost
article is affected.

-- 
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain at gmail.com