On 11/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:09:41 -0500, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
BADSITES has proven to be an extremely convenient way of distracting attention from the real issues regarding offsite harassment and non-encyclopedic links; I suspect it has worked even better than its author ever dreamed it would.
Yes, I think you are right. We had an IP turn up out of the blue yesterday and mark some current proposals as "rejected" due to BADSITES, including one that was specifically motivated by the rejection of BADSITES and seeks to do what the last ArbCom suggested, namely write a workable policy.
Of course, it is incredibly important to WR that they retain the ability to add links. Not because they want to, but because it keeps the site in the public mind. Without the constant harping it would have been forgotten by now as just another festival of stupid.
Guy (JzG)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment essentially eliminates the ability to link to Wikipedia Review, which fails at least four of the five "Should I link to it?" criteria in "LINKLOVE". If people stopped pushing BADSITES and looked at something more like LINKLOVE they'd win over those of us who don't give a fuck about linking to the Wikipedia Review but are unprepared to delink slashdot.org from [[slashdot]] or newyorker.com from [[The New Yorker]]. It's probably worth considering.
Cheers WilyD