On 5/31/07, Blu Aardvark <jeffrey.latham(a)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.