On 5/30/07, K P <kpbotany(a)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
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".