-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 06:15 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
[Incidentally, Fred, your quoting seems to have broken.]
On 12/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Those who are engaging in this discussion in good faith are concerned with those questions. But those who advanced "Bad Sites" were certainly not. They were trying to confuse the issue.
Was not the whole point of WP:BADSITES simply to codify in /de jure/ policy the /de facto/ policy that is already implemented, for certain value of badsite at least?
Yes, my editor does not work right.
I think the point of Bad Sites was to sucker us into taking an absurd position. And it worked. Not with everyone, but with a critical mass sufficient to cause plenty of trouble.
Fred
On 10/11/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: James Farrar [mailto:james.farrar@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 06:15 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?
[Incidentally, Fred, your quoting seems to have broken.]
On 12/10/2007, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
Those who are engaging in this discussion in good faith are concerned with those questions. But those who advanced "Bad Sites" were certainly not. They were trying to confuse the issue.
Was not the whole point of WP:BADSITES simply to codify in /de jure/ policy the /de facto/ policy that is already implemented, for certain value of badsite at least?
Yes, my editor does not work right.
I think the point of Bad Sites was to sucker us into taking an absurd position. And it worked. Not with everyone, but with a critical mass sufficient to cause plenty of trouble.
Fred
Fred
The answer is then pretty simple - don't engage any drama. When somebody askes whether some random article on Slate.com invalidates the whole place as a potential source, we say "No - that's not an attack site" and we move on. If they then use the link to harrass "someone", well we block them for harrassing someone. How they did it becomes irrelevant. If they don't, then everybody goes about the business with no harm done. Even if their motives are impure, but simply saying "No" and then dropping it, the issue ends in the cleanest way.
Cheers, WilyD