On 14 Oct 2007 at 13:19:08 +0100, wikien-l-request@lists.wikime wrote: [long lines rewrapped in accordance with RFC 2822]

So much discussion? Why? Because people are idiots. As a community, we clearly need some resolution to the matter of attack sites. And yes, it is a trite issue: how hard can "link to reliable sources, but nothing else (and god help you if you break this rule)" be?

It's "hard" because, the way you stated it, it makes no sense. Sources (reliable or not) are not the only function or purpose of a link. There is also the inclusion of a link to the official site of a person, organization, company, etc. that has an article (which has been the point of contention in a few cases such as that of Michael Moore). There is also the use of links in the course of discussion on talk and project pages, which is not subject to the same reliable source rules. There are links on user pages where people link to sites they're involved in or that they find interesting; do these also need to be "reliable sources" (for what)?