On 03/07/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/2/07, The Mangoe <the.mangoe(a)gmail.com>
> The NYT case is excessive; but it only sticks out
because IAR steps in
> and says that nobody can take erasing all links to the NYT seriously.
> It's OK to erase links to any crticial site because people can say
> these sites are bad and get away with it. In the case of TNH the story
> that her blog was an attack site couldn't be seriously sustained-- but
> it didn't stop someone from trying.
The person who did that got upset because he was
outed, and he reacted
badly, which he later admitted. It was a very human response, and it's
unfair to keep on using it as a weapon.
Um, no. I keep mentioning it as an example of the idiocy your proposed
attitude leads to. In the best of faith. As such, it is relevant and
I'll keep mentioning it because it is relevant. That it counts against
your position is not a reason to suppress all mention of it.
What we're talking about is very simple. We have a
bunch of people who
volunteer their time because Wikipedia's a cause they believe in.
That's not a bad thing to do. Therefore, don't make their time here an
abject misery. Criticize them by all means. But recognize the line
between fair comment and hurtful attacks that humiliate them. And
don't do anything on Wikipedia that could put them in harm's way in
So remove the links that are in fact personal attacks.
Arbitrary blocking for linking at all - as has just been happening -
is beyond the pale.
For me, it's a no brainer that that includes not
linking to websites
that *make a habit* of humiliating their targets. It's very sad that a
simple attempt to be decent triggered so much baiting and an unkind
For me, it's a no brainer that linking at all to a site deemed an
"attack site" by (in actual practice so far) any administrator at any
time will lead to a block ... is stupid and damaging to the
encyclopedia and its community.