-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 04:03 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy
On 10/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:50:16 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
< snip a lot, but in particular: >
There's a big difference between clarifying policy and expanding policy.
Yes. And in this case they *clarified* policy. Policy is: no privacy violations, no attacks, no stalking, no harassment. Clarification is: not even by writing it elsewhere and then linking to it.
I don't see any arguments against the banning of linking to web *pages* that contain personal attacks, etc., on Wikipedia users.
What I see are arguments against the banning of links to entire web *sites* that happen to contain some such pages. I also haven't seen any justification for such a ban.
OK, here you are:
It is helpful to support productive editors and administrators and protect them from harassment both on and off Wikipedia. Certain sites contain little or no critical discussion, but a great deal of material which either attempts to identify anonymous Wikipedia editors or to harass them in some way.
You complain about the justification being repeated, but continue to say you see no justification...
Fred
On 11/07/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2007 04:03 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] FredBauder"clarifies"onattackkk site link policy
On 10/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:50:16 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
< snip a lot, but in particular: >
There's a big difference between clarifying policy and expanding policy.
Yes. And in this case they *clarified* policy. Policy is: no privacy violations, no attacks, no stalking, no harassment. Clarification is: not even by writing it elsewhere and then linking to it.
I don't see any arguments against the banning of linking to web *pages* that contain personal attacks, etc., on Wikipedia users.
What I see are arguments against the banning of links to entire web *sites* that happen to contain some such pages. I also haven't seen any justification for such a ban.
OK, here you are:
It is helpful to support productive editors and administrators and protect them from harassment both on and off Wikipedia. Certain sites contain little or no critical discussion, but a great deal of material which either attempts to identify anonymous Wikipedia editors or to harass them in some way.
You complain about the justification being repeated, but continue to say you see no justification...
That is a justification for banning links to such *pages*, not the entire *sites* they're on!
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:10:20 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
It is helpful to support productive editors and administrators and protect them from harassment both on and off Wikipedia. Certain sites contain little or no critical discussion, but a great deal of material which either attempts to identify anonymous Wikipedia editors or to harass them in some way.
You complain about the justification being repeated, but continue to say you see no justification...
That is a justification for banning links to such *pages*, not the entire *sites* they're on!
As Fred said, "You complain about the justification being repeated, but continue to say you see no justification..."
Pay particular attention to this phrase: "Certain sites contain little or no critical discussion, but a great deal of material which either attempts to identify anonymous Wikipedia editors or to harass them in some way."
Now, we might say that a broken clock is right twice a day, but it would be pointless to use it as a referent just because we happen to know that it' about that time.
Guy (JzG)
On 11/07/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
Now, we might say that a broken clock is right twice a day, but it would be pointless to use it as a referent just because we happen to know that it' about that time.
That is a totally preposterous analogy.
One might as well say that, because a clock had stopped, we shouldn't even try changing the batteries to see if it works; just throw the whole thing in the trash.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:52:43 +0100, "James Farrar" james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
Now, we might say that a broken clock is right twice a day, but it would be pointless to use it as a referent just because we happen to know that it' about that time.
That is a totally preposterous analogy.
So you say. I have seen what frustrated vanity spammer Jonathan Barber, aka Looch, has to say on the subject of collateral damage from his prolific vandalism. Planet Reality is a long way from Planet Looch.
Guy (JzG)