On 31/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
No, I'm just rejecting all attempts to frame this as something it isn't. It's been a veritable straw man army today, but I will not let even one pass. The second someone even starts to question what possible benefits accrue to Wikipedia from WR links, the BADSITES boogeyman is trotted out to scare everyone into quiet submission, as it was intended. A lot of mileage has been gotten from that straw man. Oh, and don't bother with the "but that's just a recent convenient argument" ploy either. Been there, done that, and I have the e-mails.
No, that's precisely backwards of how the thread went.
On Gracenotes' RFA, Slim raised "attack sites", Gracenotes responded concerning "BADSITES" and that he wouldn't favour a policy of mindless removal of links to any site, Slim said she would oppose based on that, suddenly it was the issue of the RFA.
Will Beback blindly reverted encyclopedic links, claiming they were to an "attack site." This was entirely spurious, but closely matches the behaviour demanded by BADSITES: remove all links to an attack *site*.
Since the behaviour demanded was identical to the "strawman" BADSITES policy, and Will's behaviour was identical to the "strawman" BADSITES policy, I am going *so far* as to call this thing that looks, walks and quacks like BADSITES ... BADSITES.
Clear enough?
- d.