Quoting Will Beback
<will.beback.1(a)gmail.com>om>:
I can't speak for others, but that's not
a fair summary of my position.
I think that removing material is a standard part of editing. I think
that the project has been improved by removing all kinds of material. I
think that links to self-published sites actively harassing Wikipedia
editors are not reliable sources and should be removed just as we remove
other unreliable sources. Doing so makes for optimal encyclopedia content.
Will, this still misses the basic issue. There's no good reason to
treat Michael
Moore's self-published site which we link to on his article any
different than
say Richard Dawkins, or Jonathan Sarfati simply because one of them
choose to
harass Wikipedia users. If the concern is solely that these aren't reliable
sources then we should be removing all of them. The site's reliability has
nothing to do with whether or not it attacks Wikipedia users.
We use a variety of standards to decide if a source is reliable. I'm
proposing an additional test. I don't know what you're referring to
when you say "these". If you mean self-published experts then you may be
right. The exception that allows them was controversial and maybe it
should be revisited.