Delirium wrote:
To be frank, I don't see how your response was at all a response to my post. Nobody is proposing that we include Michael Moore's home phone number in his article, or "every possible iota of information". What some of us are proposing, rather, is that encyclopedic information that would otherwise be included in an encyclopedia article on the subject, such as a website of a famous person that is cited hundreds of times in academic literature, should not be removed from the Wikipedia article on the subject solely for reasons that include the word "Wikipedia" self-referentially in them. If it *isn't* encyclopedic, then remove it for that reason, which is a completely separate issue.
That's why we're focusing on examples like michaelmoore.com in this thread. Random non-notable forums that aren't encyclopedic are completely irrelevant to WP:BADSITES, since they shouldn't be included anyway (due to lack of notability / encyclopedic content). The problem with WP:BADSITES is that it proposes that encyclopedic information that would normally be included in an encyclopedia should be removed from our particular encyclopedia. My argument is that if we're removing information that Encarta would include because of some reason that doesn't have to do with making a better article, we're doing something wrong.
Compare to how the New York Times writes its articles: they don't decide not to cover otherwise newsworthy subjects because of how their reporters are treated.
-Mark
We don't know what the ''New York Times'' or ''Encarta'' use as their standards for sourcing (or if we do please send a link). Can anyone provide a link to an Encarta article that uses as a source a website that harasses Encarta editors? If we're to compare harassment and outing issues on Wikipedia to those in the traditional media then the Plame case may be more relevant.
My proposal is considerably different from "WP:BADSITES". I'm not sure why folks continue to use that term to describe every single proposal advanced to resolve this problem, but it may not be the most helpful plain of engagement. I dub this proposal "WP:COISITES" because it covers self-published websites that have a conflict of interest with Wikipedia due to their attempts to coerce WP editors.
Here is a formulation: "WP:COISITES: Self-published sources, such as blogs, forums, and open wikis, that are actively engaged in lawsuits or harassment of Wikipedia or its editors are not reliable sources [unless proven otherwise] and should not be used as a source or external link in articles."
That text excludes non-self published sources, like the ''New Yorker''. It allows for some flexibility in special cases. It doesn't deal with non-article space links at all. Further language would be needed to define "harassment", and to map out dispute resolution procedures.
What's missing or in error from that proposal?
-Will Beback