There's a -tremendous- difference between tolerating spam and leaving it in an article where it's appropriate. I'm 100% for stopping any spamming campaign. But if someone were spamming a link to the NYT with "SUBSCRIBE TO THE NYT TODAY!", we wouldn't spam-blacklist it, because there are legitimate uses. In this case, there's a legitimate use. And the last I checked, child porn wasn't being printed in everything from Wired to the New York Times.
And yes, we -can- cover the topic without using the number, in the same way we -could- cover the speed of light without putting what it is. But either one would be incomplete. Only one, however, involves caving to bullies.
On 5/4/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007 18:02:19 -0700, "Todd Allen" toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
But we ought not be afraid to have it at all, when it's part of a highly-notable incident.
Just like we ought not to be afraid to have actual pictures of child pornography in the article on that subject, right? Or maybe it's possible to cover the topic without the keyspam.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l