Slim Virgin wrote: You can do that with me, if you'd like. If someone libels me, it's -my- responsibility to sue them and require them to change that, not everyone else in the world's responsibility to avoid reporting on the incident. Now, of course, if a website is unreliable, it's unreliable. Web forums are unreliable, but we still might link to them in an article on the forum itself. If the forum itself is notable, we do that. Even if it's a nasty, vicious forum, if it's been reported in other reliable sources, we report on it. That's what you signed up for. Now, of course, if little or no source material exists besides the forum itself, it's inappropriate to have an article on it. That's true whether it's a forum that discusses cute fluffy bunnies or real-life identities and attacks on people. But if many reliable sources exist, it -is- appropriate to have an article on it. That's true whether it's a forum that discusses cute fluffy bunnies or real-life identities and attacks on people. NPOV means -no exceptions-. And that includes if we DONTLIKEIT.

On Wed, 30 May 2007, Slim Virgin wrote: If that is the thought experiment, it is not analogous to the situations where people want to include links to "attack sites". These links are not being added by people just to raise them, but because they believe the links are useful.

On 5/30/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: I would prefer one where we're open to issues people have with us to one where we squelch all criticism. We, ourselves, are built on principles of openness. Just because some articles on Wikiepdia are bad, doesn't mean that you don't use the whole website. Likewise, just because WR has done some bad things, doesn't mean you don't link there if they have an insightful idea or comment. ~~~~ -- Absolute Power C^7rr8p£5 ab£$^u7£%y

Slim Virgin wrote: I'm with you on the atmosphere. I have been involved in on-line community stuff for an embarrassingly long time, and I think keeping a healthy, supportive, sympathetic, and welcoming culture is vital to an effort like Wikipedia. I'm also with you on drawing clear lines on what's acceptable and taking those lines very seriously. But where I'm not yet convinced is the extent to which we can effectively punish off-Wikipedia activity on Wikipedia. I see the appeal, but to the extent that I understand what's being proposed, I am not yet seeing the benefits outweigh the costs. For example, in your hypothetical case of a person maliciously posting links to a site with libel elsewhere on it, I'm not seeing as banning talk-page links to the whole site as particularly effective. Instead, I'd rather we got together as a community and set up a legal fund for a libel suit. I feel like banning links to some kook's site is just rewarding their desire to cause trouble, and doesn't hurt them in any way that matters. A well-funded lawsuit, on the other hand is plain scary. Speaking of which, I'm in for $500 if somebody makes your hypothetical case real. If anybody is doing that, shame on them. I don't think anybody deserves that. On the other hand, I think there's a legitimate point that could be mistaken for that. As the people running one of the world's top information sources, even if we don't think we deserve trouble, I think we should expect it. We should also expect people to pry at our pseudonyms in the same way they pry at corporate and governmental veils of secrecy. We're important, and they want to know who we are and what we're up to. Luckily, much of the heat is focused on Jimmy Wales, and I appreciate the amount of trouble and abuse he takes on our behalf. But it will only get worse. I think we should be relentless about policing abuse on Wikipedia both because it's right and because it will be the death of the project if we don't. But I don't think we can fix the rest of the Internet or the rest of humanity, and barring legally actionable issues, I don't think we should try. Their lack of psych meds is not a problem we can solve, and I think taking the high road will get us a lot further. I regret to say that I disagree with you here except that I see compassion as a common motive. William

On 31/05/07, Slim Virgin <slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote: Indeed. And I don't want an atmosphere like that you fostered on Gracenotes' RFA. - d.