[WikiEN-l] Another "BADSITES" controversy

[Sheldon Rampton]

Jayjg wrote:

> But Sheldon, Wikipedia has all sorts of rules about what kinds of
> websites it allows links to, both in the actual articles themselves,
> and even in the External links sections. The rationale behind these
> rules is that linking to these sorts of websites does not assist the
> purpose of  Wikipedia (which is to create an encyclopedia), and
> arguably detracts from it or damages it.

As several people here have previously pointed out, the rules you're  
describing above restrict people from linking to those sorts of  
websites in the article space, not on talk pages or things like  
Signpost. And none of those other rules are written as a backdoor way  
of banning links to a single specific site. As a general rule, it's a  
bad idea to write an across-the-board policy just to deal with a  
single situation.

> I haven't heard you
> complaining about those rules, yet, oddly, you seem to have become
> incensed over even the suggestion that WR is also the kind of site
> that could not assist  Wikipedia in achieving its goals, and, in fact,
> would arguably detract from Wikipedia or damage it. This apparent
> double standard is troubling.

I guess this passage is some sort of lame attempt to insinuate that  
I'm trying to carry water for WR. I don't give a fig about WR. I've  
only visited it a couple of times (always in response to the fuss  
that people keep making about it here), and I don't find it  
particularly interesting or worth reading. I get the general idea  
that it's a haven for grumbling Wikipedia-haters and that Daniel  
Brandt ought to take a chill pill, but I haven't seen anything there  
reach the level of malignancy that some people here keep insisting is  
its very essence.

I'd ask you to give me a specific example, but you seem to have a  
policy against that. Instead, you've offered elaborate but vague  
hypothetical situations: "suppose someone calls you a pedophile on  
their website and then never actually links to the page where they  
call you a pedophile but instead slyly links to other pages while  
standing on their head and whistling Dixie...." Since your  
hypothetical situations don't resemble anything I've ever actually  
seen on WR, I can't imagine how your hypothetical scenarios apply to  
this discussion. I'd ask you to give a specific example rather than  
give hypotheticals, but that would require you to link to WR, and you  
can't under your own rules. That's one of the problems with  
censorship. It even hurts the censor.

--------------------------------
|  Sheldon Rampton
|  Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org)
|  Author of books including:
|     Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities
|     Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
|     Mad Cow USA
|     Trust Us, We're Experts
|     Weapons of Mass Deception
|     Banana Republicans
|     The Best War Ever
--------------------------------
|  Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting:
|  http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html
|
|  Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting:
|
https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/ 
custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107
--------------------------------