On Nov 21, 2007 7:18 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
ok and moreover constitute an encyclopedic reason to remove the links which is hard to understand given the serious NPOV violations that it entails
"Serious NPOV violations?" Hardly. That's an argument I've seen several times, and, frankly, it's specious. A link isn't a POV, much less a *significant* one.
Of course links are POV or not. If we remove all links to a major critic or proponent of something that's the height not NPPOV. And yes, that is a serious breach of NPOV since many people use Wikipedia precisely to find out where else to look at things. And regardless, NPOV is not negotiable. A serious violation is unacceptable as is a minor one.
If there is an important or significant POV contained in a link then it should be in the article; *that* is where NPOV would be violated. And if there are no reliable sources for a POV, then it's not a significant POV. Let's get down to specifics; what important POV was "suppressed" by the removal of the link to Black's blog? Please list the exact *significant POV*, and the reliable sources that make that POV encyclopedic.
You are missing the point. Black's views are contained in his blog. The fact that he has a blog since he is a noteworthy person is noteworthy. That we will have the blog of one person who is notable but not another based on what POV the people have (i.e. their attitude towards Wikipedians) is not neutral.
I'm not seeing any of that in the existing NPOV policy. If he has any *noteworthy* views they will have been printed in reliable sources. And does having a Wikipedia article suddenly make a blog noteworthy? I doubt an article on his blog would survive an AfD process.
and the fact that these are links that but for the mention of Wikipedians we would have in the articles.
Just because we would typically do something doesn't mean that we *must* do so, even *should* do so in every single case. That's not really an argument, and external links should be evaluated on their overall merits.
No one is claiming that links shouldn't be evaluated on their merits. But our personal feelings cannot effect what we do or do not put in article space.
Let's not denigrate the motives of others, or pretend that our own actions are always purely rational, ok?
I didn't assert otherwise. But it doesn't change the fact that the removal of links that contain harassment is to protect the feelings of the Wikipeians in question.
No, that's not what it's for.
And t to argue otherwise is exactly what has led to these repeated problems, whether it be Making Lights, or MichaelMoore.com or any.
"Repeated problems"? Only if you mean "repeated" in the sense of "a couple of incidents repeated a thousand times by anti-BADSITES proponents".
Making Lights, Michael Moore, Robert Black. That's at least three right there.
You still haven't described the encyclopedic content on the Black blog that you feel needs to be in Wikipedia. I asked you for specifics; is there something there that could actually be used in an encyclopedia article?
And both the Making Lights and the Michael Moore cases made us look really bad with the general public.
As I've said before, tempest in a teapot. One in a million of the "general public" is aware of the "Making Lights" and "Michael Moore" anti-BADSITES rallying cries.
And again, there's no such thing as a little violation of NPOV.
Perhaps, but there are plenty of things that have nothing to do with NPOV at all, and providing a link to a non-notable blog is one of them.