-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 05:06 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
On 11/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 04:29 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
On 11/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Right, and that is where "the idiot" should have to look for it. It is >>inappropriate to trash our own users on our own site.
This is not seriously in dispute, as far as I can tell.
That is exactly what is in dispute.
No, it really isn't.
What is in dispute is whether linking to a non-attack page on a site which also has attack pages counts as "trashing our own users on our own site".
What is also in dispute is the subjective manner in which potential "attack sites" are assessed.
That's the strawman. Saying that Slate is somehow an "attack site" based on one link in an article. No, of course not.
We are always subjective, but a good discussion will almost always help us make better decisions. (Although, not necessarily on this list where we freely permit posting by persons who reject our premises).
Fred
On 12/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
We are always subjective
And that's a problem, since it leads to the impression being given that the determining factor on what is deemed to be an "attack site" is "I don't like it".
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
We are always subjective, but a good discussion will almost always help us make better decisions.
Fred, that's precisely what's at issue here. The BADSITES policy prevents good discussions of the sort that are Wikipedia's foundation. That's why I think this issue is so crucial to Wikipedia's future.
William