On 27/08/07, John Lee <johnleemk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/24/07, crock spot <crockspot(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> A clear violation of [[WP:NPA#External links]].
Just asking nicely is
> likely
> to fail. That link should be removed from wikipedia until the attack is
> removed from the website.
So, we should not link the official website of a
notable person, just
because that notable person said some not-nice things about an editor?
People like Jayjg were saying "Oh, this wouldn't happen - this is clearly
not covered by the policy, all you need to do is use some common sense."
Common sense is apparently not so common.
(Oh, yes, and should we remove all citations to
michaelmoore.com pages in
our articles because it is now apparently an "attack site"?)>
When there is a trade-off between protecting one of us, and the quality of
our encyclopaedia, which ought to come first? I suspect this disagreement is
really intractable because it is a question of values. It is impossible to
objectively answer this question.
The other problem is that admins on Wikipedia are powerful figures on
an important top-10 website that's regarded as a public resource -
and, as such, are somewhat public figures and hence a legitimate
subject of critical comment. And this is not to justify insane
stalkers, but that's not what I'm talking about. Deciding anyone
criticising on such an assumption should be treated as an insane
stalker is ... probably not workable.
- d.