On 5/28/07, Sheldon Rampton <sheldon(a)prwatch.org> wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
This sort of thing, banning links to external
sites, if done at
all, needs to be limited to sites that extend their activities
beyond criticism of Wikipedia to actions that hurt individual
Wikipedia users. The blog seems to focus on publicizing Will
Beback's real name which she got from ED. She is offended at his
interactions with her when she edits.
Actually, banning links to external sites should not be done AT ALL.
I don't care if the external site in question is run by someone who
has a personal dungeon where they flay Wikipedia users with flaming
razors. Banning links to their site is just bad policy, no matter
what they are doing. If they are doing something ILLEGAL that "hurts
individual Wikipedia users," they can be prosecuted for it in an
actual court of law, but banning links to their site just turns
otherwise sensible Wikipedians into stupid bureaucrats and makes
things worse. It also invites the question, "What makes Wikipedia so
damn special?" As the essay that was recently posted here points out,
Wikipedia has no problem linking to Nazi websites and a host of other
sites that promote violence, hurt people and break the law. It's
ridiculous and embarrassing to have a policy that says "we don't care
who else you hurt as long as you don't hurt Wikipedians." Finally,
the question of what it means to "hurt" someone is impossible to
define adequately for the purpose of making this policy practical --
especially since some people can be very thin-skinned about criticism.
This is the sort of situation where I think it would be good if Jimbo
stepped in and played God to put an end to this nonsense.
Exactly. Context is key - and furthermore, banning things on a site-by-site
basis is ridiculous. If the entire site is devoted to, say, outing an
anonymous individual's identity, then hell yes, kill links to it with fire
(unless, say, it becomes notable, in which case, link to it where absolutely
necessary). But if there's a site run by a famous chef who also has a
vendetta against, say, me, should we ban links to his site because one page
of it is devoted to libel against me, while there are dozens of helpful
pages that could be used as sources for articles about cuisine-related
articles?
The absolutist thinking of those who say "all BADSITES must go" is
well-meant but causing a lot of grief and, I would suggest, will harm the
encyclopaedia if it has not already.
I think the Arbcom should clarify their decision to say that "attack sites"
refers to sites composed of nothing but attacks - Brandt's Hive Mind site is
probably a good example - and not just sites which contain attacks but also
contain other content.
Johnleemk