I am glad to have such a clear statement, to disagree with. The purpose of an honest encyclopedia is to take the truth from wherever it appears, and to refer accurately even to the works of those who work against the truth.
If they are malicious, their maliciousness will be apparent when exposed. That's the basic principle of all respectable journalism. to hide the views of one's opponents--even one's bad faith opponents--is censorship. I will defend WP by all intellectually honest means, but hiding the views of those who attack it is not such. It's not even productive--that we think their views dangerous enough to unlink adds to their credibility.
The reason NPOV is the most basic of principles is that without it, no source of information can be trusted, or is worth even producing. Fred, your well-intentioned policies will have the unintended end of destroying our credibility.
On 9/21/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel R. Tobias [mailto:dan@tobias.name] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:08 PM To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] BADSITES ArbCom case in progress
On 20 Sep 2007 at 21:33:58 +0000, fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote: [long line rewrapped]
We do not have an exception to [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] which permits linking to a personal attack on an external web site.
Which is relevant if you buy into the concept that "everything not explicitly permitted is prohibited."
Anyway, the questions at issue tend to be of the form "Does the above apply in any way to a link, for a purpose unrelated to any attack, to a site that happens to also have attacks in it?"
Depends on the site. If the site is used in a campaign of harassment, maliciously, yes.
Fred
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l