"David Gerard" wrote
On 17/10/2007, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
15.1) Wikipedia should not link to websites set
up for the purpose of or
substantially devoted to harassing its volunteers. Harassment in
this context
> refers to cyber-stalking, offline stalking, outing people without their
> consent, humiliating them sexually, or threatening them with physical
> violence.
Is naming a site the same as linking? Note that
in the example that
caused the case,
antisocialmedia.net (which is undoubtedly an attack
site) was named, not linked, and its name has been in reliable sources
(under the interpretations pushed by the most prominent advocates of
BADSITES-like policies).
Naming a site, alluding to a site, hinting at a site's existence:
these are not linking to a site. If naming is gaming this principle,
then we should treat it like other gaming. Gaming harassment policy
is typical of bullying and provocative behaviour - back to the
playground. In other works there is a pretty good reason to say
WP:HARASS is not for gaming.
but can't have
the article link to them? Can someone explain to how this makes any sense at
all? Oh, yes that one saved click is really going to make it less harassing.
This is in many ways the worst possible combination. We are sacrificing the
integrity of article space for an at best marginal benefit.