Hm. The only issue with putting the focus on the sites (rather than the
context of the links themselves) is that we'll still have to act against
links to random blog posts that make serious personal attacks
against Wikipedians, and this would not be covered by the central
idea of the policy.
On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yeah, but that was my point. :) As it is now,
anything from MSNBC.comto
to Wikipedia Review to Making Light to ED to whitehouse.govcould
theoretically be an attack site. I don't think it's appropriate for any
person to make the decision. Anyone can put forth
a site as one, but if
people don't support it...
That's an unhelpful slippery slope argument. For what it's worth,
here's how I would define an "attack site": "a website that regularly
publishes, or a large portion of which includes, the purported
personal details of editors (unless those editors have themselves
explicitly revealed the information); personal attacks; defamation;
personal threats; or posts that constitute, report the results of,
threaten, or incite harassment, stalking, cyberstalking, invasion of
privacy, or violence."
Now, given that definition, I can't see why anyone reasonable would
object to a "no links to attack sites" rule of thumb. We don't even
link to sites that engage in copyright violation. Even when we only
*suspect* copyright violation, we err on the side of caution.
Increasing the readership of websites that encourage people to stalk
and harass Wikipedians, or that try to "out" them, or that publish
defamation, is obviously a much dodgier thing to do than linking to a
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: