On 5/30/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark <jeffrey.latham(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
> It was more general than that. They found that: "A website that
> engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning
> the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack
> site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under
> any circumstances."
Note: a website that engages in the *practice* of publishing private
information doesn't include websites that just happen to name someone
once, but that mostly do other things.
There was also a recent request for clarification, where it was
confirmed that the definition included Wikipedia Review.
Right, but Arbcom is not designed to write or replace policy, and
certainly not to override common sense. Now, granted, there are
relatively few occasions where a link to a site such as Wikipedia Review
is beneficial to the project, but it should be acknowledged that these
Actually, I can't think of any occasion where such a link would be
beneficial to the project. What exactly did you have in mind?
At some point one of these sites may become a news article itself. Stalkers
will generally stop at nothing, that's why they still wind up in their
stalkees bedrooms well armed after the restraining order and after a number
of trips to jail. In this case, if the attack site is the stalker's venue,
and it becomes a news article, will there be a link to the attack site?
There will be other less drastic cases, where the attack site becomes
newsworthy itself for some other reason, and does contain attacks and
outings of Wikipedia editors, or where the Wikipedia editor defames themself
in an outing way (the Roman Catholic "PhD" editor) that may lead to the site
itself becoming a part of the normal wealth of sources that contribute to a
In these cases, as a general debate here, should the attack site be listed
in the Wikipedia article?