And here is the crux of the issue - jayjg is talking about using these so-called attack sites as reliable sources and external links. Slim Virgin is talking about them being inherent personal attacks. If they aren't reliable sources, write about them in the WP:RS policy. It doesn't belong in NPA if it is about their use in articles.
Risker.
On 5/30/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/05/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I am saying that if we want to prohibit linking to Wikipedia Review, we come out and say so directly and simply and clearly. Don't beat around the bush with vague talk of "attack sites" that someone can come back to later and twist around to play silly buggers with - because they can and will.
People will always wikilawyer any rule, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. The remedy for wikilawyering is common sense, as always. Moreover, rules should be as general as possible; Wikipedia shouldn't have a policy about one specific item.
Indeed. So why are you advocating it do so?
I'm not advocating anything. A claim was made that it might be beneficial to link to WR; I'm trying to see if that's true.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l