I should add to my comment below, that the issue is more, when a link is discretionary. For example, "external links" sections are intended to help people. Would the average person expect a link to (for example) michaelmoore.com under Michael Moore's article? Would it be helpful to them? What if the first thing they would see on visiting there would be a denigration or attack on Wikipedia (or its editor/s)? What if they might wander round and find such a page elsewhere on that site?
I think that puts it in perspective in a way. It is a tough one, I'll grant that.....
FT2.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 4:16 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 20/10/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Durova wrote:
It cements the notion that banning the link is punitive, not protective.
We do it for shock sites, and antisocialmedia.net is odious enough to deserve not being linked.
Note that "X website is odious enough to deserve not to be linked" is quite closely related conceptually to the following statements:
"X person is odious and hence should not be mentioned." "X belief is odious and hence should not be mentioned." "X lifestyle is odious and hence should not be mentioned." "X other viewpoint is odious and hence should not be mentioned."
NPOV disavows * all * of these... and anything like them, as valid rationale for article edits.
Whatever is done in non-article space, in _article space_ neutrality overrides self interest on the part of _all_ participants in _any_ discussion. There are several ways around this but ultimately:
1 -- If a fact is not notable in an article, it can be ignored.
2 -- If a fact is notable, but no reliable sources that attest to its standing as a fact can be found, then it can be removed whether factual or not, for want of reliable sourcing.
3 -- If a fact is notable and reliable sources exist, then it can usually be sourced from a reliable source that is more desirable than a site burdened with controversy and hostility.
4 -- If a fact is notable and the only reliable sources accessible happen to be on a site that is generally undesirable, then there are only 2 choices remaining -- engage non-neutrality and disregard a notable fact in mainspace because of a dislike towards its source on the part of (one or more) editors, or, do not disregard and mention it anyway.
5 -- Established perspective: NPOV is non-negotiable in article space.
6 -- Established perspective: Editors who cannot handle NPOV on a given article or topic, should avoid editing that article. This includes any editors, however experienced, not just newcomers.
FT2.