Slim Virgin wrote:
People who want to be able to link to the dedicated attack sites are exaggerating the arguments to make their opponents look nuts. Common sense has to be applied, as always.
People who want to go on a rampage against links to "dedicated attack sites" are exaggerating the arguments to make their opponents look nuts as well. Now, true, there may be some trolls and nutters in the mix, but the vast majority of people opposing an absolutist policy not because they want to link to the sites, but rather because they recognize that there are occasions where a link to an alleged "attack site" may be useful in an encyclopedic context, or during relevant on-wiki discussions. If common sense has to be applied, why is it that so few are willing to do so?
"Dedicated attack sites" is also a misnomer, as no site truly fit this description. Wikipedia Review is dedicated to critique of Wikipedia, although I'll admit it often falls short. It isn't dedicated to harassing and outing Wikipedia editors (this does, however, happen, and I won't deny it.) Encyclopedia Dramatica is a bit closer to the description, as it is dedicated to drama, and the producing of it, but nonetheless it is not a "dedicated attack site" either. Nor is Brandt's site, or wikitruth, or any other site which editors are on a rampage against.