Delirium wrote:
It sounds like what you want is a rule that certain types of sources should not be used due to concerns *other* than their reliability. So why not say that?
-Mark
Folks often say that removing links violates NPOV. But a much larger effect on POV comes when editors are harassed off of Wikipedia because of content-related edits or decisions. When a coherent group (gang, religious sect, etc) succeeds in driving away all interested editors who disagree with them then the NPOV of the topic suffer tremendously, far more than from the mere absence of a single hot link.
We say "comment on the edits, not the editors", which is always a good idea,, but of course it's editors who create and modify the content. If the editors on one side of an issue are harassed off the project unfairly then the project's content will become less neutral. It's gaming the system from the outside, just like tilting the pinball machine. Even though it's "outside" of Wikipedia, external harassment still affects the contents, potentially very profoundly.
Is the project poorer without a hotlink to MichaelMoore.com, or without the contributions of THF? For all his faults, I'd say THF has contributed infinitely more content than an external link does and if it were a matter of THF vs the link then I'd go with THF anyday. We can always add the link back after THF leaves (as all editors eventually do) or the harassment ends.
W.