On 30/05/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am saying
that if we want to prohibit linking to Wikipedia Review,
we come out and say so directly and simply and clearly. Don't beat
around the bush with vague talk of "attack sites" that someone can
come back to later and twist around to play silly buggers with -
because they can and will.
People will always wikilawyer any rule, but that doesn't mean they
shouldn't be made. The remedy for wikilawyering is common sense, as
always. Moreover, rules should be as general as possible; Wikipedia
shouldn't have a policy about one specific item.
We have a situation where the problem is with a couple of specific
sites. We have people wanting to ban linking to those sites. Every
discussion involved seems to be about those two sites.
This is a perfect example of when it makes sense to be specific.
When we want to make a rule to deal with a specific thing, we should
be specific. Writing it in general terms, whilst everyone involved
knows and understands we're talking about one specific thing, is just
silly - are we doing it so it looks better? Far better we state
clearly up front what we're talking about than leaving it be and
hoping everyone Understands The Unwritten Meaning two or three years
down the line.
Otherwise, we just get another Making Light farce each and every
month, as one of our less cool-headed idiots gets in a fight with
someone else on a comment thread buried deep somewhere on a site, then
decides - oh no! attack site!
- Andrew Gray