On Tue, 24 May 2011, Tom Morris wrote:
The reason: Wikipedia is on the Internet. If Wikipedia has an article about something whose promoter specifically intends to spread it on the Internet, it is impossible to separate reporting from participation. It's a loophole in the definition of neutrality that doing things which help one side of a dispute doesn't break neutrality, simply because our intentions are neutral--even though our effects are not.
Using that logic, we should probably shut down every page on WP about politics, religion, alternative medicine and anything even vaguely controversial.
There's a difference between helping someone who happens to find some publicity useful, and helping something that is mainly a publicity campaign. There's also a difference between spreading facts that are incidentally used in a publicity campaign but are independent of it, and spreading the campaign itself.
If there weren't any anti-scientology campaigners spreading the word about Xenu, we'd still have a reason to have an article about Xenu. If there was no anti-Santorum campaign, we'd have no reason for the article--its entire existence depends directly on that campaign.