On 4/28/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Slim Virgin wrote:
Having said that, the BADSITES proposal was probably unnecessary, and it attracted the attention of editors who want to be able to link to those sites because they post on them, which led to a lot of
pointless
fighting. I think it's a better idea to have a sentence or two about attack sites in NPA or the blocking policy.
I think the whole thing was phony. It served as a platform for them,
so they could argue their points.
I agree. They had a field day.
Are you accusing me of being phony, or objecting to the proposal because I post on WR (hint: I'm not on WR), or being a sockpuppet, or otherwise not sincerely objecting to the proposal because I think it's a bad idea?
I find this whole discussion ludicrous. It's *basic common sense* not to link to /webpages/ which contain personal attacks or any of the sort, unless absolutely necessary (e.g. evidence in ArbCom). Similarly, it's basic common sense to link to webpages which contain helpful information (but not personal attacks), even if these pages are hosted on sites which also host personal attacks.
This crusade against linking to any website which hosts personal attacks, regardless of the value of individual pages hosted on the site, is beyond ridiculous. Its only founding is in an ambiguous ArbCom decision (as demonstrated by the different opinions of arbitrators about how to interpret it), and it lacks any grounding whatsoever in common sense.
We shouldn't be banning links on a site-by-site basis; if we are to ban them at all, ban linking on a page-by-page basis.The most authoritative biography of say, [[Daniel Brandt]], may be found on a website which also hosts personal attacks on Wikipedia editors. What ought we to do? Cite the damn biography, and don't link to any of the personal attacks. It's not that hard to do.
Johnleemk