On Nov 21, 2007 11:04 AM, Wily D
<wilydoppelganger(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/21/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG
<guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 10:09:41 -0500, jayjg
<jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>BADSITES has proven to be an extremely convenient way of distracting
>attention from the real issues regarding offsite harassment and
>non-encyclopedic links; I suspect it has worked even better than its
>author ever dreamed it would.
Yes, I think you are right. We had an IP turn up out of the blue
yesterday and mark some current proposals as "rejected" due to
BADSITES, including one that was specifically motivated by the
rejection of BADSITES and seeks to do what the last ArbCom
suggested, namely write a workable policy.
Of course, it is incredibly important to WR that they retain the
ability to add links. Not because they want to, but because it
keeps the site in the public mind. Without the constant harping it
would have been forgotten by now as just another festival of stupid.
Guy (JzG)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment
essentially eliminates the ability to link to Wikipedia Review, which
fails at least four of the five "Should I link to it?" criteria in
"LINKLOVE". If people stopped pushing BADSITES
Who is "pushing BADSITES"? Please name them, and show where they are
doing so. I've only seen people using it as a strawman, but I might
have missed a supporter somewhere.
We've been over this. Tony, Mongo and Thuranx were all pushing for it.