On Nov 21, 2007 12:19 PM, James Farrar <james.farrar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu
<joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Quoting jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>om>:
?
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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l