On Nov 21, 2007 12:19 PM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com:
?
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.
Jayjg this would be a nice story except for a few problems: 1) A number of editors favored BADSITES 2) The removal of many of the problematic links we've seen in the last few months (such as Making Lights and Robert Black's blog) we're precisely what BADSITES was calling for.
Indeed.
Indeed what?
It seemed to me that BADSITES was an attempt to codify then-current practice
Then-current practice according to whom?
[*] in order to demonstrate how silly it was. That the community rejected it tells its own story.
Yes, that the community was suckered by a strawman proposal. It worked perfectly.
[*] I hope it's not current practice any more -- but only time will tell on this.
How could something that was never "current practice" still be "current practice"?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l