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

[William Pietri]

Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
> There are some editors who have been so viciously attacked that any
> link to these sites, however innocuous the individual page, feels like
> a mortal insult.  What's on these sites that justifies that pain?
>
> [...]
>
> Maybe someone can offer an example of a link to one of these sites
> which is so self-evidently important that the article would be
> incomplete without *that link* (rather than that content cited to a
> print source, say).
>   


I feel a lot of sympathy, but my main concern with this approach has two 
matching sides:

On our side, it's mainly a stick to hit people we don't like. It shifts 
focus away from building a good article and toward interpersonal and 
intergroup struggles.

On the external side, it creates drama in three ways: Those who feel 
unjustly targeted will seek retribution for our retribution. Griefers 
and trolls will use it as a goal to achieve, especially on somebody 
else's forum. And members of the public will note the excitement and do 
all the things people do around ongoing soap operas.


So personally, I'd rather avoid creating an official list of our enemies 
and I'd especially rather we didn't mandate every editor pay attention 
to it. I think that in the long run it will only increase the problem 
we're trying to eliminate.

William