On Nov 21, 2007 2:42 PM,
<joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Quoting jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>om>:
On Nov 21, 2007 2:03 PM,
<joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
> Quoting jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com>om>:
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 2007 1:31 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 21/11/2007, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 21, 2007 1:02 PM, <joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > > doing so was the same. Crappy links are deleted for all sorts
of
> >> > > > reasons, mostly because they're crappy, even if they
would
> also have
> >> > > > been deleted under that strawman BADSITES policy.
> >>
> >> > > Except none of these were crappy links.
> >>
> >> > They looked like crappy links to me, but I could be wrong. Any
> specifics?
> >>
> >>
> >> The deletion of encyclopedic links to
nielsenhayden.com by
Will
Beback.
> >
> > That old chestnut? It's the other strawman used as the rallying cry.
> > Will realized he made an error, and apologized profusely. The whole
> > issue was over long ago, but anti-BADSITES people bring it up again
> > and again and again, as that one incident has been extremely useful.
> >
> > People misapply *real* policy every day, we don't then say OMG BAD
> > POLICY, IT MUST GO!!!!!
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> > > These were links that would have been
> >> > > included in article space but for the fact that they contained
> >> material we
> >> > > didn't like.
> >>
> >> > Err, "containing material we don't like" pretty much
covers
every link
>>
> ever deleted from Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>> ... for other than encyclopedic reasons.
>
> One man's encyclopedic reasons...
Jayjg, kindly make up your mind. Are you defending things like the
removal of
Making Light or not?
Please don't make the Fallacy of many questions. I've never defended
the removal of Making Light, as far as I can recall, so I don't know
what I would have to "make up my mind" about.
Well, you seem to be asserting that it is encyclopedic to remove links that
mention information or speculation about Wikipedians. That's precisely
what was
at issue with Making Lights.
I'm not making general cases or policied. When I edit I I add or
remove links based on their individual merits. You're the one who
wants to generalize, then point and shout BADSITES, BADSITES!!!
At the top of this post you assert that such things
were
wrong, and at the bottom you seem to be arguing that removal of
otherwise good
external links is
"Otherwise good external links". Therein lies a whole universe of
ambiguity.
No it really doesn't. Links that we would contain but for the fact that they
have information or speculation about Wikipedians. That's precisely
what is at
issue.
So, links that we might want to link to except if it happens that we
don't want to link to them?
ok and moreover constitute an encyclopedic reason to
remove
the links which is hard to understand given the serious NPOV violations
that it entails
"Serious NPOV violations?" Hardly. That's an argument I've seen
several times, and, frankly, it's specious. A link isn't a POV, much
less a *significant* one.
Of course links are POV or not. If we remove all links to a major critic or
proponent of something that's the height not NPPOV. And yes, that is
a serious
breach of NPOV since many people use Wikipedia precisely to find out
where else
to look at things. And regardless, NPOV is not negotiable. A serious
violation
is unacceptable as is a minor one.
If there is an important or significant POV contained in a link then
it should be in the article; *that* is where NPOV would be violated.
And if there are no reliable sources for a POV, then it's not a
significant POV. Let's get down to specifics; what important POV was
"suppressed" by the removal of the link to Black's blog? Please list
the exact *significant POV*, and the reliable sources that make that
POV encyclopedic.
You are missing the point. Black's views are contained in his blog. The fact
that he has a blog since he is a noteworthy person is noteworthy. That we will
have the blog of one person who is notable but not another based on what POV
the people have (i.e. their attitude towards Wikipedians) is not neutral.
and the fact
that these are links that but for the mention of
Wikipedians we would have in the articles.
Just because we would typically do something doesn't mean that we
*must* do so, even *should* do so in every single case. That's not
really an argument, and external links should be evaluated on their
overall merits.
No one is claiming that links shouldn't be evaluated on their
merits. But our
personal feelings cannot effect what we do or do not put in article space.
Let's not denigrate the motives of others, or pretend that our own
actions are always purely rational, ok?
I didn't assert otherwise. But it doesn't change the fact that the removal of
links that contain harassment is to protect the feelings of the Wikipeians in
question.
And
t to argue otherwise is exactly what has led to these repeated problems,
whether it be Making Lights, or
MichaelMoore.com or any.
"Repeated problems"? Only if you mean "repeated" in the sense of
"a
couple of incidents repeated a thousand times by anti-BADSITES
proponents".
Making Lights, Michael Moore, Robert Black. That's at least three right there.
And both the Making Lights and the Michael Moore cases made us look really bad
with the general public. And again, there's no such thing as a little
violation
of NPOV.