joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
It seems at this point we are just repeating the same essential arguments. Some people, like Will think that NPA can override optimal encyclopedia content. Others, like myself think that it cannot and should not. I, at least, find it is a bit ridiculous to not link to the official webpage of a famous person from the person's article simply because the person has a highly negative opinion about some Wikipedians. And I don't see this as substantially different as deciding not to link to say, the New York Times if they published an anti-Wikipedia editorial that attacked Essjay or published an article outing a Wikipedia editor.
I can't speak for others, but that's not a fair summary of my position. I think that removing material is a standard part of editing. I think that the project has been improved by removing all kinds of material. I think that links to self-published sites actively harassing Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources and should be removed just as we remove other unreliable sources. Doing so makes for optimal encyclopedia content.
"Highly negative opinions" are fine, harassment is not. They are different things. The New York Times is not a self-published site, which is all that my proposal addresses.
Will