On Nov 21, 2007 7:18 PM, <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Quoting jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>om>:
> 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.