On 10/16/07, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Will Beback wrote:
I don't see any comment from you about links outside of article space, so I'm not sure if you are in favor removing those. On the whole, it does appear that you are saying to Wikipedia editors that they must deal with harassment either by growing a thicker skin or by leaving the project. Is that correct?
I certainly didn't see David say that.
I think a big piece of the dissent here is that there are some pretty widely differing views on what the power of a link is. If there's some vile harassment out there on an external site somewhere, and no matter I how heinous it is, I (and several others in this debate) believe that, most of the time, a link to that external harassment is *not* harassment itself. The external harassment exists whether I link to it or not, and the guilt for the harassment likes solely with its author, not with me for maybe linking to it.
Others, however, seem to feel that by default a link to an external harassment page *is* just as bad as the harassment itself. It's as if it's okay for me to write
Hey, David, did you know that over on davidgerardisapervert.com they're saying you enjoy sex with dead goats?but if I instead write
Hey, David, did you know that on [http://davidgerardisapervert.com/ perversions/sex_with_dead_goats.html this page] they're saying you enjoy sex with dead goats?poor helpless David will immediately click the link, and be transported into paroxysms of anguished guilt over what he sees there. (Or something.)
Fifty quatloos to the man who buys that domain and puts some salacious content there.
One hundred, and a large alcoholic drink of your choice, if it's David himself.