On 5/30/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark jeffrey.latham@gmail.com wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
It was more general than that. They found that: "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO#Links_...
Note: a website that engages in the *practice* of publishing private information doesn't include websites that just happen to name someone once, but that mostly do other things.
There was also a recent request for clarification, where it was confirmed that the definition included Wikipedia Review.
Right, but Arbcom is not designed to write or replace policy, and certainly not to override common sense. Now, granted, there are relatively few occasions where a link to a site such as Wikipedia Review is beneficial to the project, but it should be acknowledged that these occasions exist,
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
At some point one of these sites may become a news article itself. Stalkers 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.
Jay.