On 5/30/07, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
And here is the crux of the issue - jayjg is talking about using these so-called attack sites as reliable sources and external links. Slim Virgin is talking about them being inherent personal attacks.
I'm saying three things (1) there is never a good reason to link to one of these sites, so don't do it; (2) no matter what page you link to, there's likely to be a serious personal attack on it, because the particularly egregious sites are full of them; (3) that we shouldn't, as an encyclopedia, want to increase the readership of websites that seem devoted to encouraging stalking, harassment, "outing," and defamation.
All the opposing arguments I've seen so far boil down to wikilawyering, along the lines of "But we can't have that rule because one day the New York Times might publish a threat to stalk and harass a Wikipedian, and then we could never again use the New York Times as a source!!" or "But what if there's an ArbCom case about these sites, and what if no one could understand the evidence without seeing actual live links, and what if all the ArbCom members lost access to their e-mail accounts for the entirety of that case!!!"