On 10/17/07, Will Beback will.beback.1@gmail.com wrote:
Moore is notable as a filmmaker. He is not notable as a blogger. His blog is not encyclopedic. We are only providing a link as a convenience, and a very minor convenience because it it the first link that comes up on Google. So we are saving our readers about .5 seconds out of their lives. We aren't preserving NPOV, we aren't taking a stand against censorship, we're merely saving some readers a tiny bit of time. I don't begrudge anyone even half a second. But if the tradeoff we're looking at is linking to harassment of Wikipedia editors versus the slightest inconvenience (hopefully temporary) of our readers, then I don't think we should have a question. For completenes inthe article we can say the guy has a blog (who doesn't), but unless the blog is notable I don't see the overriding need to promote "convenience" above "no personal attacks".
It's an official website, not merely a blog. And even then, I'm pretty sure we frequently link to the official blogs of prominent people. The question is, why are we making an exception for Michael Moore? Is it motivated because of some editorial reason (i.e. including the link reduces the usefulness and value of the article), or because we're Wikipedia and we don't like how Moore treated one of our editors? If the latter, it's a pretty clearcut NPOV violation.
Johnleemk