On 5/30/07, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
jayjg wrote:
On 5/30/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
will generally stop at nothing, that's why they still wind up in their stalkees bedrooms well armed after the restraining order and after a number of trips to jail. In this case, if the attack site is the stalker's venue, and it becomes a news article, will there be a link to the attack site? There will be other less drastic cases, where the attack site becomes newsworthy itself for some other reason, and does contain attacks and outings of Wikipedia editors, or where the Wikipedia editor defames themself in an outing way (the Roman Catholic "PhD" editor) that may lead to the site itself becoming a part of the normal wealth of sources that contribute to a Wikipedia articles.
In these cases, as a general debate here, should the attack site be listed in the Wikipedia article?
If WR ever did become newsworthy, we'd still cite the news stories about it, not WR itself.
We wouldn't cite it, but we'd of course link to it.
Yes, in the extremely unlikely event that WR became notable, we might want to have a link to the website on the article about the website. That's one. I've heard one more possibility advanced so far, if there were an arbcom case that involved evidence on WR.