On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
It seems to me that the times in which a link to WR would benefit Wikipedia are extremely few at best, and involve very specific circumstances - so specific, that they could, in fact, be enumerated in very short list.
Indeed, there are at best 5-7 total 'attack sites'. So few, that they could, in fact, be enumerated in very short list.
5-7 sites you are aware of, today. There are thousands of these things out there, and more all the time.
Why not just list them at BADSITES as a "do not link list"? If the *community* agrees on an entry, hey, cool, don't link it. If not, well, the community has decided, right? Unless very small minorities on-wiki get to decide they know better than everyone else and try to policy wonk or game their way to their ends. But that would be wrong, no? ;)
I'm not talking about BADSITES, which was a straw man policy. I'm exploring the claim that it would benefit Wikipedia to link to WR or sites very much like it.