Slim Virgin wrote:

As I said earlier, the problem with the worst of the sites is that practically every link will lead to a page containing a serious personal attack, even if that's not the comment being linked to.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that's true. Better yet, let's suppose that a site exists called "Slim Virgin Is Evil and Must Be Destroyed Along With the Rest of Wikipedia," and that they have a rigorously enforced rule requiring that every link on the entire site must contain a vitriolic, hurtful, untrue, threatening attack on some Wikipedian.

Now suppose that Slim Virgin's twin sister, Fat Virgin, creates a user page where she states, "I'm thoroughly disgusted with the revolting attacks that continually appear on 'Slim Virgin Is Evil.' Check it out." and gives a link to a particularly nasty example.

Under those circumstances, do we REALLY need a policy enticing officious Wikipedians to waste their time deleting the link from Fat Virgin's page? Maybe someone might want to quietly advise Fat Virgin that it's not a good idea to help call attention to the ravings of a jerk, but if she disagrees for some reason, Wikipedia doesn't need a policy that forces her to comply. It's only one link on a user page, and it isn't going to make "Slim Virgin Is Evil" famous.

Of course it's a different matter entirely if someone on Wikipedia links to "Slim Virgin Is Evil" with the evident intent to attack Slim Virgin. In that case, Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks provides sufficient basis to handle the situation.

The question here is not whether it is generally advisable to link to sites that attack Wikipedia. The question is whether Wikipedia needs a POLICY that forbids such links. Adopting such a policy means that we think preventing such links is so important that we cannot simply trust the case-by-case discretion and good judgment of individual Wikipedians and therefore need to impose a judgment uniformly across the board.

And what's the harm that people are seeking to prevent by having such a policy? We already know that the policy can't prevent attack sites from EXISTING. All it purports to accomplish is a marginal reduction in the amount of traffic that such sites receive, on the basis of theorized but unproven assumptions about the amount of traffic that they might get from a few links on Wikipedia. Of course, the harm we CAUSE in pursuit of this minor and mostly hypothetical benefit is that we make Wikipedia look ridiculous by saying in effect, "We'll censor anyone who even mentions anyone who criticizes Wikipedia, but we're perfectly happy to serve as a repository for links to sites that vigorously attack Hillary Clinton or Jerry Falwell or Jews or homosexuals or in fact anyone who happens not to be us."

-------------------------------- | Sheldon Rampton | Research director, Center for Media & Democracy (www.prwatch.org) | Author of books including: | Friends In Deed: The Story of US-Nicaragua Sister Cities | Toxic Sludge Is Good For You | Mad Cow USA | Trust Us, We're Experts | Weapons of Mass Deception | Banana Republicans | The Best War Ever -------------------------------- | Subscribe to our free weekly list serve by visiting: | http://www.prwatch.org/cmd/subscribe_sotd.html | | Donate now to support independent, public interest reporting: | https://secure.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizations/cmd/shop/ custom.jsp?donate_page_KEY=1107 --------------------------------