On 5/30/07, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/05/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I'm not sure what you're saying. Under what
linking to WR or a similar site be beneficial to Wikipedia? Please
I am not saying we would ever want to link to Wikipedia Review or its
ilk. I am saying that there are perfectly legitimate sites we want to
link to which could be decreed as "attack sites" - witness this whole
Making Light debacle, at the beginning of this very thread - by
someone with their own reasons for doing so, and railroaded through
with a bit of noise.
I'm not interested in generalities and slippery slope arguments,
though, I'm looking for specifics. When would it be beneficial to
Wikipedia to link to WR?
"I am not saying we would ever want to link to Wikipedia Review.." was
the first sentence in the comment you replied to. Does it become any
more clear if I repeat it?
I. Am. Not. Saying. We. Should. Link. To. Wikipedia. Review.
Thanks, that's very clear, but I was challenging the claim that we
might indeed want to link to WR, and you responded to that.
I am saying that if we want to prohibit linking to Wikipedia Review,
we come out and say so directly and simply and clearly. Don't beat
around the bush with vague talk of "attack sites" that someone can
come back to later and twist around to play silly buggers with -
because they can and will.
People will always wikilawyer any rule, but that doesn't mean they
shouldn't be made. The remedy for wikilawyering is common sense, as
always. Moreover, rules should be as general as possible; Wikipedia
shouldn't have a policy about one specific item.