On 19/09/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Armed Blowfish wrote:
I have no idea how you think removing links to psychologically damaging material which aren't reliable sources anyway hurts the project...
But, of course, we aren't talking about removing the odd link here and there. We're talking about a policy which makes it normal to set up prior restraint against entire sites, to declare that no link to any page on those site may ever be made for any reason, without exception.
If the material in question - be it a privacy violation, defamation or hurtful - is on the front page of the website or easily findable from the front page, then this makes sense. Linking to the material is assisting in its dissemination, and may further the harm done by it in two ways - increasing exposure of the material and reminding the person hurt by it of said material. These things are all-or-nothing. Number of people who read the material does matter. How long it stays up also matters.
In a number of jurisdictions, pointing in the direction of or repeating defamation has been considered defamation itself. Refusal to take down the material does, in the UK at least, foil any innocent dissemination defence.
This article gives some good pointers: http://www.dba-oracle.com/internet_linking_libel_lawsuit.htm
The author of that article, Don Burleson, co-authored the book 'Web Stalkers: Protect yourself from Internet Criminals & Psychopaths'.
True, it would be better for a representative to talk the website into taking down the material altogether. However, note that some material, for example that which may hurt a person's feelings but is otherwise legal and fine, may be bad for inclusion in Wikipaedia, but not things Wikipaedia can insist other websites to censor. One person I talked to suggested that it was alright to edit Wikipaedia and not make off-wiki attacks, or to not edit Wikipaedia and make off-wiki attacks (free speech and all), but that doing both was poisonous.
Technology enables this sort of thing. Things that would help: * Allow and encourage Tor. * Hide the parts of Wikipaedia where signatures appear (basically, everything but the actual encyclopaedia) from Google. * Provide an option for autoconfirmed users to hide their contributions history from non-admins. (For an added twist, you could allow admins to do this only if they forfeit their ability to see the contributions histories of those who choose to be hidden.) Since this would be optional, it would cause no GFDL problem. * Blank, delete and oversight first, privately ask questions later.
Also, Wikipaedia itself could try not setting such a bad example by ruthlessly attacking people....
(And for good measure, some seem to want to make the list of so-banned sites secret.)
This reminds me of WebSENSE, a company which provides blocking software. In July 2002, WebSENSE started providing daily porn links which they blocked but which their competitors, SurfControl and SmartFilter, did not. Anyone -- including students at schools using SurfControl or SmartFilter - could view this list simply by agreeing that they were over the age of 18. SurfControl and SmartFilter did not block WebSENSE's website. They did, however, add the links to their own blocking databases within about 24 hours. After 5 months, WebSENSE took down their list, with an explanation that their competitors simply blocked the links they provided immediately.
http://peacefire.org/censorware/WebSENSE/#porn_lists
Yes, given that people might look at Wikipaedia's blacklist, it should probably be secret, or if that is not allowed under its licence, at least hidden from Google.