On 10/19/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
So you're saying that if an editor is harassed by an outside group then the editor (and Wikipedia) should give in to that harassment. And you think that won't affect the POV of a topic? If a group succeeds in driving off one editor after another, how many thick-skinned editors are there willing to take their places?
I still fail to understand how removing links to a particular website does anything except give [the group of Wikipedians advocating this type of policy] an opportunity to claim the moral high ground. It does not harm that website to have their links removed. It does not make the harassment any harder for people to find, except by perhaps adding the intermediate step of having to type the URL in by hand or Google it -- all it does, in fact, is DRAW ATTENTION to the harassers and the inappropriate material. "Oooooh, XYZ website is harassing Wikipedians! Let's take all their links away!" and what happens? EVERYONE rushes to read it. Why would you want to give the harassers that kind of satisfaction?
As I mentioned before, if the harassment is more severe than just inane blabbering on a webpage (personal info posted, threats of real harm, etc etc), then report it to the police or the website's hosting company or upstream carrier. That's far more effective in getting the content hidden or shut down than just unlinking it from en.wp. Anything that *is* just inane blabbering, just freakin' ignore it and they will go away.
--Darkwind