On 8 Jul 2007 at 12:26:36 +0100, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Me, I take a more practical view. WR has no known editorial process, and is a festering den of banned vanity spammers and other malcontents. What they say about Wikipedia has no discernable authority, it is a textbook case of an unreliable source.
Fine... that's a reasonable line of argument when it comes to considering using that site as a source. However, using that argument makes the issue a content dispute, where the proper way to resolve it is through calm, reasonable discussion on the talk page... not by threatening to block people on the other side of the dispute. That makes it a very different thing from the blanket link ban being pushed. There are plenty of sites out there that are probably not very good sources for most (or all) things... somebody has recently cited The Register in that regard. However, those sites don't have a whole clique out to vigorously suppress all reference to them, even on talk pages.