[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com]

Fred wrote

> >PLEASE, give us some guidance that can stick, if (collective you) are
> >going to make the policy any more specific.
> 
> I'm not sure we (the arbitrators) would agree on this point (that it was ever proper to remove the link to MichaelMoore.com).
> 
> And actually, we didn't necessarily agree to consider that question. Should we?

I'm not sure the ArbCom should get into policy making, even in response to polite requests to do so. One of the clear problems of the reification (BADSITES as if there was a well-defined thing out there, rather than just the usual Web slop of forums for people getting things off their chests with improbable avatars) is that there is some assumption that there _must be a policy_. There can't really be a policy about how junky really junky junk has to be before people will be punished for linking to it. People who go around the site linking to junk are being a nuisance anyway. 

A 'policy' would, for the usual reasons, be applied by people saying the junky junk they are linking to is not quite as junky junk as the policy specifies, and so linking to it is somehow OK. That is not how good policy operates. Good policy has some kernel that can generally be agreed (like 'civility helps'); and does not specify (a list of acceptable insults along with a list of definitely unacceptable ones). 

Charles

-----------------------------------------
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam