Slim Virgin wrote:
On 5/28/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that "the rest of us" includes good--faith editors, but it also includes people who post to these sites and who are trying to stir things up. It's therefore impossible to measure consensus in any meaningful way except by the actions of admins and experienced editors. If most continue to remove links to these sites, we have consensus to do it; and if not, not. Only time will tell, and I suggest we leave it there.
Are people adding enough of these links that most experienced editors will have a chance to remove them? If so, the problem is much larger than I thought.
On the other hand, if it's a relatively small number of links, then the method you suggest would lead to the appearance of consensus even though a relatively small number of people actively remove links to sites (rather than particular attacks, which I think all agree are out of bounds). If that's the case, I'd rather have an open discussion and come to consensus by the traditional manner, talking.
I don't know if others feel this way, but I'd rather have a clear policy to enforce, even if the policy is only making clear the factors we should have in mind when exercising our best judgment.
Thanks,
William