On 15/10/2007, William Pietri <william(a)scissor.com> wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
> My proposal is considerably different from
"WP:BADSITES". I'm not sure
> why folks continue to use that term to describe every single proposal
> advanced to resolve this problem,
Probably because *in practice* the advocates (a) tend to keep doing
the same ridiculous things (b) coming up with novel theories as to why
policy fully supports them damaging the encyclopedia in pursuit of the
same goals, each and every time.
> but it may not be the most helpful
> plain of engagement. I dub this proposal "WP:COISITES" because it covers
> self-published websites that have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia
> due to their attempts to coerce WP editors.
I think the major similarity to me is reducing the
utility of our site
to punish people we designate as bad.
Yes. The community is important to the encyclopedia, but the
encyclopedia is more important than the community writing it.
> Here is a formulation:
> "WP:COISITES: Self-published sources, such as blogs, forums, and open
> [...] What's missing or in error from that proposal?
For me the error is in the mismatch between the stated
purpose and the
effects. We already know how to evaluate sources and not link to bad
ones. I don't see this as adding anything to WP:RS or WP:COI.
Seconded.
The only purpose to this new formulation is to attempt to retcon
justification for BADSITES-like behaviour.
I'll keep calling it BADSITES as long as the behaviour fails to change.
No matter how much Michael Moore doesn't like us,
it doesn't alter the
utility of his site for our readers. And it doesn't suddenly convert
reliable information into unreliable information, just as people being
extra-nice to us doesn't make their information more reliable.
Indeed.
If your goal is to take punitive measures against
people who attack
Wikipedia editors -- which seems to be the effect of this proposal -- I
think you should just propose it as such.
This would have the added benefit of evidencing self-insight.
- d.