On 5/30/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not talking about BADSITES, which was a straw man policy. I'm
exploring the claim that it would benefit Wikipedia to link to WR or
sites very much like it.
I understand. Let me phrase it this way: RFA. Bob runs for adminship. Bob
has good edits, good this, good that. He'd likely be a fine canidate and a
fine admin. John alleges, on Bob's RFA, that Bob is a regular contributor to
an attack site. Someone asks for proof of this. Here are three questions for
both you and Slim, and others:
1. How can John offer proof? We can't link to attack sites. Is John supposed
to name the site, and tell people what to search for?
2. Without proof, anyone--given the poisonous nature of BADSITES/attack
sites--can poison a canidate and nuke an RFA with impunity. Do you think
that being allowed to make allegations without matching evidence is
appropriate? Note that RFA is a community matter, and the RFA process needs
to be transparent.
3. Bob can refute the possibly empty allegation, but what does it matter?
People are drive by !voters. Submit, and gone. If someone gets a poison pill
into the RFA early enough, it doesn't matter. You know this to be true. Bob
can't even in some interpretations NAME the offending site without directing
people right to it. What are your thoughts on this?
Yes, that's one of the two cases I've seen so far that might qualify,
someone who is running for a Wikipedia "office" and is also posting to
WR (or accused of it). The other would be the unlikely event that WR
was notable enough to actually warrant a Wikipedia article.