On 15/10/2007, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
My proposal is considerably different from "WP:BADSITES". I'm not sure why folks continue to use that term to describe every single proposal advanced to resolve this problem,
Probably because *in practice* the advocates (a) tend to keep doing the same ridiculous things (b) coming up with novel theories as to why policy fully supports them damaging the encyclopedia in pursuit of the same goals, each and every time.
but it may not be the most helpful plain of engagement. I dub this proposal "WP:COISITES" because it covers self-published websites that have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia due to their attempts to coerce WP editors.
I think the major similarity to me is reducing the utility of our site to punish people we designate as bad.
Yes. The community is important to the encyclopedia, but the encyclopedia is more important than the community writing it.
Here is a formulation: "WP:COISITES: Self-published sources, such as blogs, forums, and open [...] What's missing or in error from that proposal?
For me the error is in the mismatch between the stated purpose and the effects. We already know how to evaluate sources and not link to bad ones. I don't see this as adding anything to WP:RS or WP:COI.
Seconded.
The only purpose to this new formulation is to attempt to retcon justification for BADSITES-like behaviour.
I'll keep calling it BADSITES as long as the behaviour fails to change.
No matter how much Michael Moore doesn't like us, it doesn't alter the utility of his site for our readers. And it doesn't suddenly convert reliable information into unreliable information, just as people being extra-nice to us doesn't make their information more reliable.
Indeed.
If your goal is to take punitive measures against people who attack Wikipedia editors -- which seems to be the effect of this proposal -- I think you should just propose it as such.
This would have the added benefit of evidencing self-insight.
- d.