Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:14:34 -0700, Ray Saintonge
Just like any web site! Bad sites can have good
pages; good sites can
have bad pages. Yawn!
But WR has only threads, which are all vulnerable to hijack by trolls,
however well-intentioned we might in a moment of extreme Mary Poppins
optimism believe the site's owners to be.
Wait, so our argument is pretty much a slippery-slope,"even if a given
page isn't inappropriate, it could be made inappropriate at any given
moment"? Wikipedia pages are also all vulnerable to hijack. At any given
moment, there is a significant risk that any given page will suddenly
have a picture of human genitalia at the top of it. Yet nobody is
arguing that linking to Wikipedia, knowing this risk, is the same as
linking to pornographic material (at least, I hope nobody is...)
True, Wikipedia does have a track record of quickly cleaning up
inappropriate content, at least when editors are made aware of a
problem. The track record of Wikipedia Review isn't quite so clear,
especially because everyone has a different idea of what type of content
is acceptable. It does appear that the current board administration is
more than willing to work with users who raise legitimate complaints,
Look, I'm not arguing for including links to Wikipedia Review, unless
there is a damn good reason for doing so. What I am arguing is that, on
occasion, there can be good-faith rational to adding such links.
Screaming "ATTACK SITE" and reverting. threatening, "warning", and
blocking good-faith users under this banner only inflames disputes, and
makes the sites in question even more prominent.