Here's one possible way to implement this that wouldn't relate to the NPOV policy: don't remove links, simply deactivate them. The same information remains for anyone who wants to cut and paste the URL into a browser manually. The article content isn't affected. What does get affected is the outgoing traffic from Wikipedia to the site (since a lot of people are lazy), and Wikipedia is a very considerable source of link traffic. This doesn't need to be done on a permanent basis, just as long as...say...a certain editor got specifically targeted on the home page of Michael Moore's website.
I haven't pushed this idea particularly because another editor whose judgement and experience I very much respect asked me not to. I'm not necessarily advocating it now, rather presenting it as an alternative perspective at a polarized discussion.
-Durova
On 20/10/2007, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Here's one possible way to implement this that wouldn't relate to the NPOV policy: don't remove links, simply deactivate them. The same information remains for anyone who wants to cut and paste the URL into a browser manually. The article content isn't affected. What does get affected is the outgoing traffic from Wikipedia to the site (since a lot of people are lazy), and Wikipedia is a very considerable source of link traffic. This doesn't need to be done on a permanent basis, just as long as...say...a certain editor got specifically targeted on the home page of Michael Moore's website. I haven't pushed this idea particularly because another editor whose judgement and experience I very much respect asked me not to. I'm not necessarily advocating it now, rather presenting it as an alternative perspective at a polarized discussion.
Yes, this is fine and entirely defensible.
Note, of course, that in the recent arbcom case, listing the name of the site in plain text in an article was removed as a "personal attack."
- d.
On 20/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Here's one possible way to implement this that wouldn't relate to the NPOV policy: don't remove links, simply deactivate them. The same information remains for anyone who wants to cut and paste the URL into a browser manually. The article content isn't affected. What does get affected is the outgoing traffic from Wikipedia to the site (since a lot of people are lazy), and Wikipedia is a very considerable source of link traffic. This doesn't need to be done on a permanent basis, just as long as...say...a certain editor got specifically targeted on the home page of Michael Moore's website. I haven't pushed this idea particularly because another editor whose judgement and experience I very much respect asked me not to. I'm not necessarily advocating it now, rather presenting it as an alternative perspective at a polarized discussion.
Yes, this is fine and entirely defensible.
Note, of course, that in the recent arbcom case, listing the name of the site in plain text in an article was removed as a "personal attack."
It is also rather pointless. Deactivation is however useful when sites are redirecting wikipedia traffic away from the page the link is aimed at.
Quoting geni geniice@gmail.com:
On 20/10/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 20/10/2007, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Here's one possible way to implement this that wouldn't relate to the NPOV policy: don't remove links, simply deactivate them. The same information remains for anyone who wants to cut and paste the URL into a browser manually. The article content isn't affected. What does get affected is the outgoing traffic from Wikipedia to the site (since a lot of people are lazy), and Wikipedia is a very considerable source of link traffic. This doesn't need to be done on a permanent basis, just as long as...say...a certain editor got specifically targeted on the home page of
Michael Moore's
website. I haven't pushed this idea particularly because another editor whose judgement and experience I very much respect asked me not to. I'm not necessarily advocating it now, rather presenting it as an alternative perspective at a polarized discussion.
Yes, this is fine and entirely defensible.
Note, of course, that in the recent arbcom case, listing the name of the site in plain text in an article was removed as a "personal attack."
It is also rather pointless. Deactivation is however useful when sites are redirecting wikipedia traffic away from the page the link is aimed at.
Yes, if redirection of Wikipedia traffic is occurring (as happened for perverted justice for example), then deactivation is actually a service to our readers.
Durova wrote:
Here's one possible way to implement this that wouldn't relate to the NPOV policy: don't remove links, simply deactivate them. The same information remains for anyone who wants to cut and paste the URL into a browser manually.
This is a nice-sounding compromise, but it strikes me as pretty silly. It doesn't stop anyone who wants to visit the verboten page; it merely annoys them, to no purpose. It cements the notion that banning the link is punitive, not protective.
On 20/10/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Durova wrote:
Here's one possible way to implement this that wouldn't relate to the NPOV policy: don't remove links, simply deactivate them. The same information remains for anyone who wants to cut and paste the URL into a browser manually.
This is a nice-sounding compromise, but it strikes me as pretty silly. It doesn't stop anyone who wants to visit the verboten page; it merely annoys them, to no purpose. It cements the notion that banning the link is punitive, not protective.
We do it for shock sites, and antisocialmedia.net is odious enough to deserve not being linked.
- d.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 4:16 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 20/10/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Durova wrote:
It cements the notion that banning the link is punitive, not protective.
We do it for shock sites, and antisocialmedia.net is odious enough to deserve not being linked.
Note that "X website is odious enough to deserve not to be linked" is quite closely related conceptually to the following statements:
"X person is odious and hence should not be mentioned." "X belief is odious and hence should not be mentioned." "X lifestyle is odious and hence should not be mentioned." "X other viewpoint is odious and hence should not be mentioned."
NPOV disavows * all * of these... and anything like them, as valid rationale for article edits.
Whatever is done in non-article space, in _article space_ neutrality overrides self interest on the part of _all_ participants in _any_ discussion. There are several ways around this but ultimately:
1 -- If a fact is not notable in an article, it can be ignored.
2 -- If a fact is notable, but no reliable sources that attest to its standing as a fact can be found, then it can be removed whether factual or not, for want of reliable sourcing.
3 -- If a fact is notable and reliable sources exist, then it can usually be sourced from a reliable source that is more desirable than a site burdened with controversy and hostility.
4 -- If a fact is notable and the only reliable sources accessible happen to be on a site that is generally undesirable, then there are only 2 choices remaining -- engage non-neutrality and disregard a notable fact in mainspace because of a dislike towards its source on the part of (one or more) editors, or, do not disregard and mention it anyway.
5 -- Established perspective: NPOV is non-negotiable in article space.
6 -- Established perspective: Editors who cannot handle NPOV on a given article or topic, should avoid editing that article. This includes any editors, however experienced, not just newcomers.
FT2.
I should add to my comment below, that the issue is more, when a link is discretionary. For example, "external links" sections are intended to help people. Would the average person expect a link to (for example) michaelmoore.com under Michael Moore's article? Would it be helpful to them? What if the first thing they would see on visiting there would be a denigration or attack on Wikipedia (or its editor/s)? What if they might wander round and find such a page elsewhere on that site?
I think that puts it in perspective in a way. It is a tough one, I'll grant that.....
FT2.
-----Original Message----- On Behalf Of David Gerard Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 4:16 AM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
On 20/10/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
Durova wrote:
It cements the notion that banning the link is punitive, not protective.
We do it for shock sites, and antisocialmedia.net is odious enough to deserve not being linked.
Note that "X website is odious enough to deserve not to be linked" is quite closely related conceptually to the following statements:
"X person is odious and hence should not be mentioned." "X belief is odious and hence should not be mentioned." "X lifestyle is odious and hence should not be mentioned." "X other viewpoint is odious and hence should not be mentioned."
NPOV disavows * all * of these... and anything like them, as valid rationale for article edits.
Whatever is done in non-article space, in _article space_ neutrality overrides self interest on the part of _all_ participants in _any_ discussion. There are several ways around this but ultimately:
1 -- If a fact is not notable in an article, it can be ignored.
2 -- If a fact is notable, but no reliable sources that attest to its standing as a fact can be found, then it can be removed whether factual or not, for want of reliable sourcing.
3 -- If a fact is notable and reliable sources exist, then it can usually be sourced from a reliable source that is more desirable than a site burdened with controversy and hostility.
4 -- If a fact is notable and the only reliable sources accessible happen to be on a site that is generally undesirable, then there are only 2 choices remaining -- engage non-neutrality and disregard a notable fact in mainspace because of a dislike towards its source on the part of (one or more) editors, or, do not disregard and mention it anyway.
5 -- Established perspective: NPOV is non-negotiable in article space.
6 -- Established perspective: Editors who cannot handle NPOV on a given article or topic, should avoid editing that article. This includes any editors, however experienced, not just newcomers.
FT2.
How is this substantially different when implemented in article space? The end result, that links are not the same as they would be in article space in a clearly non-optimum fashion remains. At this point, we are arguing for smaller and smaller differences that do two things 1) symbolically show that the community supports the editors and 2) damages the articles in the process.
Quoting Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com:
Here's one possible way to implement this that wouldn't relate to the NPOV policy: don't remove links, simply deactivate them. The same information remains for anyone who wants to cut and paste the URL into a browser manually. The article content isn't affected. What does get affected is the outgoing traffic from Wikipedia to the site (since a lot of people are lazy), and Wikipedia is a very considerable source of link traffic. This doesn't need to be done on a permanent basis, just as long as...say...a certain editor got specifically targeted on the home page of Michael Moore's website.
I haven't pushed this idea particularly because another editor whose judgement and experience I very much respect asked me not to. I'm not necessarily advocating it now, rather presenting it as an alternative perspective at a polarized discussion.
-Durova _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l