On 5/29/07, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
On 29 May 2007 at 10:55:54 +0200, "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
There's no examples of why attack sites should not be linked. Suppose you're discussing a forum post from Wikipedia Review in some Wikipedia-relevant discussion. How can you reasonably do that without linking to it?
At least part of that site can be considered attack site (I have no idea if the Brandt's Hivemind page is still gone), but there's plenty of simple crititcs there whose posts are worth discussing. I don't see why we should ban an entire site just for part of its content.
Brandt's Hivemind is (or was) in Wikipedia Watch, not Wikipedia Review. Some people in this "BADSITES debate" seem to sometimes confuse the two sites (and it's hard to show them otherwise without committing the venal sin of linking to the sites).
Exactly. I have yet to see a single example of a revelation of personal identity on Wikipedia Review, and I know that is certainly frowned upon by the authorities there. Just cause they don't like us is no reason to not be able to link to them.
However, I would not oppose a ban of sorts on linking to Brandt's site (outside of articlespace, of course.) ~~~~
-- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/