Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:08:38 -0500, "The
Mangoe" wrote
Part of the problem, Guy, is that when you say
"link to external
harassment" you stretch things considerably. There is no meaningful
sense in which a citation sitting innocently in an article is
transformed into such a link just because someone puts up some content
elsewhere on the site to which someone on Wikipedia takes offense.
Other links are perhaps not so innocent, but the work needed to dig
them up really takes the sting out of them.
That applies, as far as I can tell, to slightly fewer than half a
dozen articles, and in every case editorial common sense rapidly
prevailed.
How about the 180 or so links to Wikipedia Review scattered around
the project? None of them in main space.
That seems to be in proportion to the amount of fuss over the site.
Without the drama I'm sure there would be fewer such links.
Indeed, one wonders why in two separate arbitration
cases the
committee have found it necessary to underscore the fact that
linking to external harassment is unacceptable
It's also an overstatement to claim that
whatever mutterings go on at
WR are harassment, even if word of them leaks out to Wikipedia.
I don't recall claiming that. I do recall stating that in my view
it is currently a cesspit, and I stand by that. Any thread on WR
has the potential to go downhill fast.
I agree that the potential is there, but it's dangerous to block solely
on the basis of idle speculation.
Simple solution: don't link to sites that are
substantially composed
of harassment and attacks.
The intelligent people are able to distinguish between linking to
harassment and linking to a site.
Ec