On 30/05/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/30/07, Joe Szilagyi <szilagyi(a)gmail.com>
> Yeah, but that was my point. :) As it is now,
anything from MSNBC.com
to Wikipedia Review to Making Light to ED to whitehouse.gov
> 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.
is as likely to be regarded as an "attack site" as
any of those. I mean, Will systematically removed all links to
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.