On 21/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Quoting jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>om>:
?
BADSITES has
proven to be an extremely convenient way of distracting
attention from the real issues regarding offsite harassment and
non-encyclopedic links; I suspect it has worked even better than its
author ever dreamed it would.
Jayjg this would be a nice story except for a few problems: 1) A number of
editors favored BADSITES 2) The removal of many of the problematic links we've
seen in the last few months (such as Making Lights and Robert Black's blog)
we're precisely what BADSITES was calling for.
Indeed. It seemed to me that BADSITES was an attempt to codify
then-current practice [*] in order to demonstrate how silly it was.
That the community rejected it tells its own story.
[*] I hope it's not current practice any more -- but only time will
tell on this.