On 5/30/07, Blu Aardvark <jeffrey.latham(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Slim Virgin wrote:
I'm saying three things (1) there is never a
good reason to link to
one of these sites, so don't do it; (2) no matter what page you link
to, there's likely to be a serious personal attack on it, because the
particularly egregious sites are full of them; (3) that we shouldn't,
as an encyclopedia, want to increase the readership of websites that
seem devoted to encouraging stalking, harassment, "outing," and
(1) Nonsense. There are occasionally, albeit rarely, occasions where
there is good reason to link to one of those sites. The litmus test
should be, "Would removing this link stir up more drama than allowing it
to remain?", because if the answer is yes, removing the link will
actually draw more attention to the site. I've given quite a few
examples of occasions where a link might be appropriate - again, it all
depends on the content and the context of the link given.
No, the litmus test should be "does this link benefit Wikipedia in any
way".. And the answer, as it turns out, is "almost never".
(2) Eh, not entirely. There are quite a few threads on
which don't contain serious personal attacks. Admittedly, they are
increasingly rare these days.
They always were rare.
(3) It should be noted that none of the sites
mentioned actively support
stalking, harassment, or defamation.
Aside from providing the venue for it and cheering on the perpetrators.