On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi szilagyi@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, but that was my point. :) As it is now, anything from MSNBC.com to CNN.com to Wikipedia Review to Making Light to ED to whitehouse.gov could theoretically be an attack site. I don't think it's appropriate for any one person to make the decision. Anyone can put forth a site as one, but if people don't support it...
That's an unhelpful slippery slope argument.
nielsenhayden.com is as likely to be regarded as an "attack site" as any of those. I mean, Will systematically removed all links to nielsenhayden.com as an "attack site" in absolute good faith. He believed the value of what he was doing - inarguably causing damage to the encyclopedia in the process.
That's why BADSITES *or anything that looks, walks and quacks like it* is unacceptable. It will be abused to damage the encyclopedia. By people convinced they're doing the right thing.
- d.