Jimmy Wales wrote:
I appreciate your concerns, but I think the
explanation I gave on the
talk page in response to your inquiry was adequate, and I think that
this is the sort of explanation that ought to be always adequate
everywhere and for everyone in cases of this type.
Your explanation of why you thought the Ogrish link was unreliable was
"It sounds very much inherently unreliable to me. It is a shock site. It
has been victimized by hoaxes in the past."
The first sentence is just a repetition of your opinion that it's
unreliable, the second is a fact that appears well supported on the
[[
Ogrish.com]] page but doesn't necessarily mean it's unreliable (much
like how "being a blog" doesn't necessarily mean a source is
unreliable), and the third is unsupported by any examples either
directly from you or on [[
Ogrish.com]] itself. I'm sorry, but IMO this
is still really wishy-washy.
It seems to me like you may be trying to use policies and guidelines to
support a decision already made for other unrelated reasons. Are you
actually removing this link on some sort of "human decency" grounds, as
I recall you've done in other cases in the past?