On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/30/07, jayjg <jayjg99(a)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.