On 5/29/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2007 18:49:48 -0700, William Pietri william@scissor.com wrote:
SV, I understand you to be saying that you don't support an absolute ban on particular sites, but rather the use of good judgment, keeping in mind that any link to a site that is sufficiently filled with personal attacks is probably a net negative.
I understand Gracenotes to be saying that he also doesn't support an absolute ban on particular sites, but rather the use of good judgment, based on the context of the post and the content of the link.
Indeed. A difference that makes no difference - but allows us to apply Clue, as we always should. The benefit of the doubt, as always with eternal links, should go to removal, but we should not absolutely rule out the possibility that a site which contains attacks may contain good content. Not that I've seen it happen yet, you understand.
However, we should resist absolutely any link to sites which "out" Wikipedians. Privacy violation is different from trolling and has a far more insidious effect.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
This is an absolutist policy I agree with--there are limits to most things.
I also agree with the user who characterizes the exhange on the RfA thus:
I've glanced at the RFA, and the RFA discussion, out of interest. I
haven't exactly seen either side being "enraged", although such emotion doesn't generally transfer well over the internets.
I don't see either side enraged. I would vote against Grace Notes based on his stance on the attack sites with outings, but remain neutral because he isn't responding in an enraged manner after being maliciously bated with a purely hypothetical situation designed solely to corner him.
KP