jayjg wrote:
On 5/30/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
will generally stop at nothing, that's why they still wind up in their stalkees bedrooms well armed after the restraining order and after a number of trips to jail. In this case, if the attack site is the stalker's venue, and it becomes a news article, will there be a link to the attack site? There will be other less drastic cases, where the attack site becomes newsworthy itself for some other reason, and does contain attacks and outings of Wikipedia editors, or where the Wikipedia editor defames themself in an outing way (the Roman Catholic "PhD" editor) that may lead to the site itself becoming a part of the normal wealth of sources that contribute to a Wikipedia articles.
In these cases, as a general debate here, should the attack site be listed in the Wikipedia article?
If WR ever did become newsworthy, we'd still cite the news stories about it, not WR itself.
We wouldn't cite it, but we'd of course link to it. It would be ludicrous to have an article about a website and nowhere in the article mention the website's URL. Even the mainstream news doesn't do that sort of thing anymore---back in the late 90s they'd infuriatingly write about controversial websites without providing links, but these days they almost invariably do, even if sometimes they include a disclaimer like "WARNING: LINK MAY HAVE NAZIS AT THE OTHER END".
-Mark