Denny Colt wrote:
On 4/8/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
But I suppose we can just all put
our heads in the sand and pretend they don't exist.
Or not go out of our way to endorse a website that seeks to do material harm to us, Dan.
Nobody is arguing that we "go out of our way to endorse" any website; we should never "go out of our way to endorse" anything *at all* in Wikipedia articles, whether positive or negative or neither, since our job is to write a neutral encyclopedia. But we also should not specifically develop different rules for content that affects *us* specifically. Wikipedia must be able to write about things that affect Wikipedia as neutrally as it writes about everything else. So I think it's quite wrong to advocate treating "sites that attack Wikipedia" differently from "sites that attack Some Other Entity". In this particular case there may well be no good reason to link to the site, but that should have nothing to do specifically with the fact that it attacks *us* as opposed to attacking someone else or not attacking anyone.
-Mark