On 7/2/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The NYT case is excessive; but it only sticks out
because IAR steps in
and says that nobody can take erasing all links to the NYT seriously.
It's OK to erase links to any crticial site because people can say
these sites are bad and get away with it. In the case of TNH the story
that her blog was an attack site couldn't be seriously sustained-- but
it didn't stop someone from trying.
The person who did that got upset because he was outed, and he reacted
badly, which he later admitted. It was a very human response, and it's
unfair to keep on using it as a weapon.
What we're talking about is very simple. We have a bunch of people who
volunteer their time because Wikipedia's a cause they believe in.
That's not a bad thing to do. Therefore, don't make their time here an
abject misery. Criticize them by all means. But recognize the line
between fair comment and hurtful attacks that humiliate them. And
don't do anything on Wikipedia that could put them in harm's way in
For me, it's a no brainer that that includes not linking to websites
that *make a habit* of humiliating their targets. It's very sad that a
simple attempt to be decent triggered so much baiting and an unkind