On 10/20/07, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
The purpose is that it reduces incoming traffic from one of the most powerful sources of link traffic on the Internet. If that discourages people from using their sites to intimidate particular editors, then so much the better.
I consider arguments based on site popularity/traffic/etc to be patently flawed. Whatever moral responsibility we wish to assume, whatever standards of decency we choose to hold ourselves to, should be based on firm principles, not an ephemeral site rank. That is, whether we are in the top ten or the bottom ten, actual practice should not differ. I know I've said this before.
That's my theoretical view on this.
Practical view: While it has become increasingly obvious that the content and behavior of other sites can and does affect (for better or worse, usually worse) the way we operate, the effect of our content and behavior has on other sites is, how do I say... grossly over-estimated.
Nobody's going to change on account of us. Their goal is, of course, to denigrate Wikipedia and its key people based on what they know, or what they think they know, regardless of where the traffic comes from, and whether or not anyone stops to read it.
They have, unlike us, no credibility to lose. They don't have to worry about us warning their readers to take their words with a heap of salt because they are in fact sociopaths, stalkers, crackpots, or lying sacks of shit. In the extreme cases, they don't have to worry about us allowing each other to mention them.
You might say they've got it easy. But it's not because "we're above attacking them back", or because "we're a top ten site", or "we don't want to help their traffic", or "we don't want to discuss any of their accusations lest they appear on the first page of Google instead of the last".
It's simpler than that. It's because it affects us personally, it's because we have feelings and assume others do too.
It's because, in the end, emotions always seem to trump principle.
—C.W.