From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, July 6, 2007 03:50 AM
To: 'English Wikipedia'
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy
Fred Bauder wrote:
If you chose to be roadkill, so be it. I consider
it a minor matter. That so much ink was wasted on the issue has little or nothing to do
with you. Just keep on editing and enjoy contributing.
We must not only support our productive contributors and administrators, our workers, we
must also make it plain that doing so is a priority. Protecting the "right" to
link to critical posts on external websites, is pretty low on the list of priorities.
However, let''s assume you are a good editor and you can assume we are trying our
best and had nothing against you personally and go from there.
It IS a minor matter, but for the fact that a small gang of obsessives
wants to flex its muscles by insisting on its right to impose discipline
on anyone who links to a site they don't like, and then support their
actions with the utterly spurious excuse that it somehow protects
people. If you want these users to assume that you are trying your
best, you must also assume that they are trying their best, and be
willing to treat them as equals. If you choose to block someone solely
for linking to such sites it's you, not them, that is making it a
personal issue, smarmy consolings notwithstanding.
You must know by now that very few of us will even think of linkig to
such sites, not even those of us who see such hard-line attitudes as a
form of bullying. Had you chosen a more pragmatic approach, the
arguments would have ceased long ago. People with a legitimate reason
for making such links would sleep peacefully; thoe who link with
attitude would face the wrath of the whole community. Those who make
such links out of bad faith are unlikely to confine thier activity to
only one single act of bad faith.
I hope you make a choice to support our productive editors and administrators and do what
is needful to protect them from harassment by external sites. I know it is frustrating and
offensive to be forced to do what you would do voluntarily and with insight.
If a naive editor got caught up in a major controversy that is a shame. However, the bold
pronouncements that the "vague" arbitration remedy was void and the ignoring of
warnings argue for a disingenuous breaching experiment. A ban is open to such theater. The
alternative is to open the site to drama, a move which would not have a happy outcome.
A dull site, devoted to work on the encyclopedia will serve our readers and productive