-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 07:50 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkkkk site link policy
On 03/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 04:45 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkkkk site link policy
On 02/07/07, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
Information you have approved for publication in the New York Times is not "private information".
Define "private information".
If you're referring to the linking of real names to account names without authorisation by the person in question, this mailing list has been guilty of that at times. This would then make wikimedia.org unlinkable.
The Mongo ruling is a blunt instrument. It's not surprising it's hurting the encyclopedia.
It's a righteous decision applied to ED. Attempting to generalize it into a policy, whether by friend or foe, is troublesome.
The problem is, the way the decision is framed does not necessarily specifically apply to ED.
Principles (3): "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking."
This is clearly not specific to ED.
Now, ED is specifically mentioned in Remedies (1) and Enforcement, so it seems clear to me that ArbCom's intent was that the ruling shold apply only to ED; however, it's equally clear that certain individuals are keen to exploit the general nature of Principles (3), despite the reception that [[WP:BADSITES]] got from the community at large.
You got it. BADSITES was nothing but provocation. An attempt to overturn the policy it supposedly supported by generalizing.
Fred
On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You got it. BADSITES was nothing but provocation. An attempt to overturn the policy it supposedly supported by generalizing.
It worked on the principle that the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it.
On 7/2/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You got it. BADSITES was nothing but provocation. An attempt to overturn the policy it supposedly supported by generalizing.
It worked on the principle that the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it.
Except it wasn't a bad law when it was being done discreetly.
On 7/3/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/07, Slim Virgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/2/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You got it. BADSITES was nothing but provocation. An attempt to overturn the policy it supposedly supported by generalizing.
It worked on the principle that the best way to get rid of a bad law is to enforce it.
Except it wasn't a bad law when it was being done discreetly.
Except that what was actually being done wasn't BADSITES, or even close. The removal (discreet or otherwise) of links to a handful of particularly questionable sites is much smaller in scope than what would have been covered by that proposal.
Kirill
On 03/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
You got it. BADSITES was nothing but provocation. An attempt to overturn the policy it supposedly supported by generalizing.
Yeah, but ... the problem is that there are editors enforcing that written version.
- d.