On 10/18/07, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/18/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
The blogger abused her power to harass Wikipedia editors. Should her self-published website have been removed as a result, or should she have been "rewarded" by adding more links to it?
I was trying really hard to avoid these threads because I find the whole thing absurd; however, I suddenly feel the need to point out how absurd it actually is... (and my following comments are not directed at anyone in particular.)
The answer to the quoted question is "Neither" -- and that's what most people seem to be missing in this whole "attack sites" debate. It doesn't have to be one or the other!
If the links to her self-published website were already in place on the article(s), logic dictates that there must have been a valid editorial purpose for the links, or they would already have been removed. So, if that site was already seen as a reliable source (or at least a valid external link), it didn't suddenly cease to be reliable because content you object to was placed on other pages on the same site. Hence, no reason for removal - unless the content of the *linked pages themselves* changed to be inappropriate, editorially, for the articles they were linked from. But if that were the case, then they would need to be removed anyway under sound editorial judgment, regardless of any possible "harassment policy".
By the same token, content that wasn't already linked didn't suddenly become more appealing to include as a source or EL as a result of the alleged abuse. Hence, no reason for additional links.
I fail to understand why there is such a brouhaha over all this attack sites crap, when it's already well covered under existing guidelines -- link to a source if it contains useful information, don't link to it if it doesn't. The only *possible* confusion is if it has valid, useful information on the top of the page and "Wikipedia editor X is a fuckwit" at the bottom, which is hardly likely.
I and some others (Steve Summit most notably, I believe) have pointed this out before. We've been ignored resoundingly.
Johnleemk