[WikiEN-l] Query for all harassment-related proposals: How are you different from BADSITES?

[RLS]

On 10/18/07, Will Beback <will.beback.1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The blogger abused her power to harass Wikipedia editors. Should her
> self-published website have been removed as a result, or should she have
> been "rewarded" by adding more links to it?

I was trying really hard to avoid these threads because I find the
whole thing absurd; however, I suddenly feel the need to point out how
absurd it actually is... (and my following comments are not directed
at anyone in particular.)

The answer to the quoted question is "Neither" -- and that's what most
people seem to be missing in this whole "attack sites" debate.  It
doesn't have to be one or the other!

If the links to her self-published website were already in place on
the article(s), logic dictates that there must have been a valid
editorial purpose for the links, or they would already have been
removed.  So, if that site was already seen as a reliable source (or
at least a valid external link), it didn't suddenly cease to be
reliable because content you object to was placed on other pages on
the same site.  Hence, no reason for removal - unless the content of
the *linked pages themselves* changed to be inappropriate,
editorially, for the articles they were linked from.  But if that were
the case, then they would need to be removed anyway under sound
editorial judgment, regardless of any possible "harassment policy".

By the same token, content that wasn't already linked didn't suddenly
become more appealing to include as a source or EL as a result of the
alleged abuse.  Hence, no reason for additional links.

I fail to understand why there is such a brouhaha over all this attack
sites crap, when it's already well covered under existing guidelines
-- link to a source if it contains useful information, don't link to
it if it doesn't.  The only *possible* confusion is if it has valid,
useful information on the top of the page and "Wikipedia editor X is a
fuckwit" at the bottom, which is hardly likely.

Even for things like the whole michaelmoore.com situation, where the
front page of the site, which is what was linked, changes to be
unfriendly to a Wikipedian; it's not like removing the link does
anything except convey a childish "nyah-nyah, we unlinked you"
sentiment -- anybody with two brain cells to rub together can use
Google to figure out that [[Michael Moore]] has a website at
michaelmoore.com, whether or not we link to it.  And if you don't have
two brain cells to rub together, you can have a guide from ChaCha.com
find it for you.

The whole debate conveys a sense of ... well, it's like the maturity
level displayed by the average mid-adolescent LiveJournaler... "You
said I'm fat, I'm un-friending you!" which means *nothing* to anyone,
except the person who made the fat comment and the person who was
insulted.  And then there are the people trying to push a more
reasonable position on this and getting told that they must be in
favor of harassing their fellow LiveJour... err, Wikipedians.  Good
lord, people, grow up.

In the rare case that there's more severe harassment that passes the
level of "You're
fat/stupid/ugly/draconian/right-wing/left-wing/Republican/Democrat/fascist/etc."
and reaches actual threats of harm to another person, then that's
well-covered by the Terms of Use of almost all US-based Internet
providers -- report them to the ISP!  I guarantee you the material
will be removed or the whole site shut down in short order, which will
rectify the linking dilemma anyway.  Or, report them to law
enforcement.  It will also be handled in short order.

> > #2. And if so, how will your new proposed policy prevent this sort of
> > abuse when the old policy was unable to.  That is-- if we all
> > magically decided to enact your policy today, what's to stop you (or
> > me, or anyone) from turning around tomorrow and having a complete
> > repeat of this whole fiasco tomorrow.
> >
> Let me ask you - will your proposal prevent bloggers who edit Wikipedia
> from using their blogs to settle on-Wiki disputes?

Nothing will ever prevent that.  Don't waste the effort trying to
formulate something aimed at stopping such.

--Darkwind