On 7/2/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I wish people would stop these hyperbolic slippery slopes. The NYT has not "outed" any Wikipedia editor. The only sites that shouldn't be linked to are those that make a *habit* of outing people, and the only people who are warned they might be blocked (or who are blocked) are the ones doing it deliberately and disruptively, as in "Oh, is THIS one of the naughty ones?" And "Ooooh, what about this? Aren't I awful?"
The flip side of this, of course, is that there's no real need to make this judgement, at least in this particular case. Regardless of whether WR is covered by the MONGO ruling (it's not explicitly named, and we've sort of waffled back and forth on the issue for some time now): why exactly do we need to link to it? For our purposes, it's not a reliable source; we don't add links to random websites -- even *interesting* random websites -- in the same way we don't add links to tabloids. If we just enforce the existing policy on external links, the problem essentially goes away.
Kirill