[WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress

[K P]

On 9/20/07, Wily D <wilydoppelganger at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/20/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 9/19/07, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> > <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > Sheldon Rampton wrote
> > >
> > > > LOL. I didn't realize that the idea of "attack sites" could be
> > > > extended to refer to anyone who attacks ANYONE.
> > >
> > > "Attack site" is a really useless piece of terminology (up there with "wheel war"). It shortcircuits thought. What this is about is trash biography, baiting and bullying. I hope the case at least clarifies thoughts on this.
> > >
> > > Charles
> > >
> > Usefule comment, Charles.  I ahave a hard time seeing that these trash
> > sites could or should be linked on Wikipedia at all.  I delete3 links
> > to other much better sites thatt aren't classified as attack sites all
> > of the time.  Unless it's an article about a famous trash biography
> > site, what is it doing on Wikipedia as a link in the first place?  Or
> > war we diswcussing userpage links or something else?  LP
> >
> KP
>
> For the most part these sites shouldn't be linked, you're right. For
> that, we don't need ArbCom to say "No linking to Encyclopaedia
> Dramatica" - we all already know that, and anyone who doesn't can be
> educated, and anyone who still doesn't get it can be educated with
> extreme prejudice. ;)
>
> But MichaelMoore.com?  Slashdot?  Conservapedia? There are legitimate
> encyclopaedic reasons to link to these (specifically, [[Michael
> Moore]], [[Slashdot]] and [[Conservapedia]].  And given the way the
> quality of "attack sites" is rising, it may not be long before we're
> talking about purging links to GlobeandMail.com or Princeton.edu
>
> The "Oh, it's just WilyDisagoatfucker.blogspot.com, there'll never be
> any encyclopaedic reason for wanting to link to it" been proven false
> three times that I know of.  People worried about the unclear language
> in what's going on are not overreacting.
>
> Cheers, WilyD
>
But why link to these sites?  MichaelMoore.com would be linked in his
article, and, where relevant, and when relevant, the site would be
linked in other articles possibly when another source is discussing
Michael Moore.

But it sounds like there are tons of links to these sites all over
Wikipedia.  Of the three, Michael Moore is not the best example,
because he genuinely generates controversy that is related to many
other people, and I can see him having many links.

I don't know what slashdot is.  I think I know what Conservapedia is,
but it was about as boring as Wikipedia Review, with less diversity of
material.  Although if you're scraping scum off the bottom of the
barrel, having a greater variety of bottom feeders eating and
producing that scum, may not be that worthwhile.

I'm afraid that I don't see the controversy in this whole thing.  I do
know, however, that there is no one on Wikipedia who could explain it
in a couple of paragraphs, with a couple of links, so that an outsider
not deeply enmeshed in the sourrounding intrigue might understand.

KP