On 5/31/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
jayjg wrote:
The purpose of BADSITES was, in general, to ensure that any policy like BADSITES would never be passed, and in particular to insure that links to WR would not be removed from Wikipedia. In this it succeeded admirably; now when people get the idea in their heads that something even remotely like BADSITES might possibly be proposed, or discussed, or even mentioned, they man the battlestations, full steam ahead, with the banner of "No censorship" flying from the main-mast, and cries of "if someone says something bad about you, you must have done something to deserve it" on their lips.
This is an interesting argument, which, although repeated numerous times, has absolutely zero evidence to back it up. The argument seems to go, "BADSITES didn't go the way we wanted it to, so it *must* have been launched by a disruptive user with the intent to invoke the opposite reaction."
No that's the straw man version of the argument. You know the difference, so please stop doing that.
The problem is that nothing has been produced to support this claim.
Actually, a number of arguments have been put forward supporting this claim.
Now, regarding this new policy you are talking about, can you direct me to the proposal page, so I can see who is proposing it, and what exactly they are proposing? Thanks in advance.
I'm not talking about any new policy, or proposed policy.
You specifically talked about a "policy they support", which was not BADSITES, but was very similar to it. Please explain where I can find that policy.