However, John, including this link on our mailing list, or linking to it from within Wikipedia is quite mischievous. Do you believe that pile of crap? Or feel drawing attention to it somehow aids Wikipedia?
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: fredbaud@waterwiki.info [mailto:fredbaud@waterwiki.info] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 08:46 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
No
Fred
-----Original Message----- From: John Lee [mailto:johnleemk@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 08:38 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
I just thought this interesting because I've used Slate as a reference for a number of articles - but following the rigid definition of an attack site which seems to be in vogue amongst a significant few, linking to Slate is now verboten.
http://www.slate.com/id/2175651/
"Brandt also has an interesting take on how Google props up Wikipedia as a premier information source, since more than 50 percent of Wikipedia's traffic comes from Google searches. If you wish to enter further into Brandt's matrix, read about how he uncovered a likely MI-5 agent operating on Wikipedia under the alias Slimvirgin. The winding road starts here [link to Wikipedia Review post by Brandt]."
I know this sounds like beating a dead horse, but correct me if I'm mistaken - we have never been given an assurance by proponents of this rigid definition that "reliable sources" like Slate cannot be given blanket treatment as attack sites and suddenly have all external links to them suppressed.
Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l