Will Beback wrote:
My proposal is considerably different from
"WP:BADSITES". I'm not sure
why folks continue to use that term to describe every single proposal
advanced to resolve this problem, but it may not be the most helpful
plain of engagement. I dub this proposal "WP:COISITES" because it covers
self-published websites that have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia
due to their attempts to coerce WP editors.
Here is a formulation:
"WP:COISITES: Self-published sources, such as blogs, forums, and open
wikis, that are actively engaged in lawsuits or harassment of Wikipedia
or its editors are not reliable sources [unless proven otherwise] and
should not be used as a source or external link in articles."
That text excludes non-self published sources, like the ''New Yorker''.
It allows for some flexibility in special cases. It doesn't deal with
non-article space links at all. Further language would be needed to
define "harassment", and to map out dispute resolution procedures.
What's missing or in error from that proposal?
What's missing is that
"harassment" is not defined first. You seek to
define a response before you define the crime. "Actively engaged in
lawsuits" may be easier to define if you insist on a link to the court
registry where the suit is actually filed.
It would be inappropriate to call something harassment without this. We
have too many people who are too quick to characterize any form of
criticism as harassment, and who would go so far as to obliterate all
evidence of the criticism so as to limit any kind of independent
evaluation. In a regular legal system that might be called obstruction
of justice.
Renaming the proposal is nothing more than a diversion into the
trivial. If there is a consensus about the substance we can name it
anything we want.
For that matter muddling this with Conflicts of Interest diminishes
the broader nature of conflicts of interest. A person who insists on
putting his own company into a good light may be in a conflict of
interest, but not with Wikipedia.
Ec