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(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007 18:02:19 -0700, "Todd
Allen" <toddmallen(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--
Freedom is the right to know that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.