On 7/2/07, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Regardless of whether WR is covered by the MONGO
ruling (it's not explicitly named,
and we've sort of waffled back and forth on the issue for some time
now): why exactly do we need to link to it? For our purposes, it's
not a reliable source; we don't add links to random websites -- even
*interesting* random websites -- in the same way we don't add links to
tabloids. If we just enforce the existing policy on external links,
the problem essentially goes away.
WR is a reliable source, and is used as such. That sounds
preposterous? Then go see how many links there are to it: 193 as I
write this. A substantial fraction, maybe half, are citations as
evidence in a bunch of RfC/ArbCom cases.