On 5/30/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 5/30/07, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
That looks like a long essay about BADSITES, a strawman policy.
Could you please point me to the actual proposed policy, then? Or if there is no convenient pointer, then could you tell me what policy change you are backing?
I'm having a discussion here, not backing a policy change. There is no policy on the table.
Sorry, I thought some people were advocating that we not link to particular sites, and I thought you were one of those people. You're saying that's wrong, and that your purpose was just to have an interesting discussion?
Somebody asserted that it could be beneficial to Wikipedia to link to sites like WR. I challenged that person to provide concrete examples of how. Soon afterwards hysterical rhetoric ensued, policies and insults flying left and right, impassioned cries of "censorship", babies being murdered, death stars being blown up, heat death of the universe, etc. The usual.
And further, that you can't point me at the proposed policy change that those other people, whomever they are, are advocating?
You'll have to leave that to the people defending to the death your civil rights, which are right now in peril of being so damaged that you may never recover. Perhaps they can point out the names of the people proposing a policy, where they have supported it, etc. I've heard the term BADSITES bandied about a lot, but, as I've said again and again, that was a strawman policy so I'm not sure of its relevance.