Durova wrote:
Durova wrote:
The purpose is that it reduces incoming traffic from one of the most powerful sources of link traffic on the Internet. If that discourages people from using their sites to intimidate particular editors, then so much the better.
You're saying that the primary purpose is to reduce the traffic going to the sites, and whether it discourages them from intimidating editors is _secondary_?
Please don't put words into my mouth. That's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm sorry, I still think that it is. You put the goal of reducing traffic first and foremost, and adding "so much the better" to the discouragement aspect means even if it didn't discourage intimidation the traffic reduction in and of itself is still good in its own right.
Perhaps if you tried rewording your original statement to express what you meant in a different way?
How can you justify making it Wikipedia's goal to manipulate other websites' traffic? We've been trying to stop SEO people from doing that since forever.
Only a straw man if it's not actually what you're saying. You said: "The purpose is that it reduces incoming traffic from one of the most powerful sources of link traffic on the Internet." As far as I can parse it this means exactly what I described above, using Wikipedia specifically for the purpose of manipulating other websites' traffic.
NPOV *is* harmed when good editors decide "this isn't worth it" and leave the project.
Only indirectly in that with fewer good editors edits to correct existing POVness aren't made as frequently. We can't go down the path of calling anything that makes editors want to leave Wikipedia an "NPOV violation", that way lies a lot of ridiculous scenarios.
Are you suggesting that bypassing normal dispute resolution and singling out individual editors for ridicule is a legitimate and healthy way to build an encyclopedia? I must disagree.
No, I'm saying that it doesn't directly harm NPOV. Things that don't harm NPOV can still be bad for Wikipedia, the two effects are not inseparable