On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, but that was my point. :) As it is now, anything from MSNBC.com to CNN.com to Wikipedia Review to Making Light to ED to whitehouse.gov could theoretically be an attack site. I don't think it's appropriate for any one 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 copyvio.