On 5/31/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
That looks like a long essay about BADSITES, a strawman policy. I'm not sure how it relates to my questions, though.
Calling BADSITES a strawman policy is in and of itself a strawman argument. By doing so, people are trying to divert attention away from the fact that the spirit of the rejected BADSITES proposal is identical, or nearly identical, to the policy they support.
The purpose of BADSITES was, in general, to ensure that any policy like BADSITES would never be passed, and in particular to insure that links to WR would not be removed from Wikipedia. In this it succeeded admirably; now when people get the idea in their heads that something even remotely like BADSITES might possibly be proposed, or discussed, or even mentioned, they man the battlestations, full steam ahead, with the banner of "No censorship" flying from the main-mast, and cries of "if someone says something bad about you, you must have done something to deserve it" on their lips.
Now, regarding this new policy you are talking about, can you direct me to the proposal page, so I can see who is proposing it, and what exactly they are proposing? Thanks in advance.