On 7/2/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com> wrote:
On 7/2/07, Steve Summit <scs(a)eskimo.com>
On the other hand, the number of sites like them are fairly small, and
people are generally sensible about these things: no-one is going to
extrapolate from that to saying "we can't link to the New York Times",
I am not making that argument.
Well, it certainly was made.
and no-one is going to insist on a banning if
there is some incredibly
important reason why one must be linked to under some bizarre and
unforeseen turn of events.
But those turns of events are not, in fact, so bizarre or unforeseen.
Yeah, they pretty much are. Rare events, and generally involving
wiki-drama, not actually building an encyclopedia.
You claim that the blanket ban is acceptable because reasonable
people can decide to make exceptions if necessary. But why go
that route? Why not say that links -- to any site, anywhere --
which serve as attacks, are attacks, and are banned under NPA?
Why not let reasonable people realize that this is a sufficient
policy, that will disallow all the troublesome links just as
effectively as the blanket ban would? What additional protective
power is gained by proactively applying the blanket ban?
Well, let's say one links to the front page of an attack site, which
doesn't actually contain any attacks, but just links to all sorts of
other pages that do.
worth its cost?
What cost? I've seen none so far. The one example given of "abuse"
I've seen done by all sorts of editors, many times, using various