On 30/05/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying. Under what
linking to WR or a similar site be beneficial to Wikipedia? Please
I am not saying we would ever want to link to Wikipedia Review or its
ilk. I am saying that there are perfectly legitimate sites we want to
link to which could be decreed as "attack sites" - witness this whole
Making Light debacle, at the beginning of this very thread - by
someone with their own reasons for doing so, and railroaded through
with a bit of noise.
I'm not interested in generalities and slippery slope arguments,
though, I'm looking for specifics. When would it be beneficial to
Wikipedia to link to WR?
"I am not saying we would ever want to link to Wikipedia Review.." was
the first sentence in the comment you replied to. Does it become any
more clear if I repeat it?
I. Am. Not. Saying. We. Should. Link. To. Wikipedia. Review.
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.
- Andrew Gray