-----Original Message----- From: Will Beback [mailto:will.beback.1@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 03:04 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
David Gerard wrote:
This would still see michaelmoore.com removed from [[Michael Moore]], so fails the giggle test.
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create articles full of content, not full of external links. I'd argue that the article on Michael Moore does not require a link to his website, nor does any article require having any external link. External links are a convenience to readers, but aren't part of the goal of the encyclopedia. W.
_______________________________________________
A prominent person, popular with most of our users, can harass an editor who takes a political position most of don't like, on his website. If we do anything about it, other than ask him to quit, we would make ourselves a laughing stock.
Policies are like spiderwebs; they catch flies. Hawks fly through. (Not an original thought, but based on the Spanish proverb "Laws, like the spider's webs, catch the flies and let the hawk go free.")
Fred
On 10/14/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Will Beback [mailto:will.beback.1@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, October 14, 2007 03:04 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Harassment sites
David Gerard wrote:
This would still see michaelmoore.com removed from [[Michael Moore]], so fails the giggle test.
The purpose of Wikipedia is to create articles full of content, not full of external links. I'd argue that the article on Michael Moore does not require a link to his website, nor does any article require having any external link. External links are a convenience to readers, but aren't part of the goal of the encyclopedia. W.
A prominent person, popular with most of our users, can harass an editor who takes a political position most of don't like, on his website. If we do anything about it, other than ask him to quit, we would make ourselves a laughing stock.
Policies are like spiderwebs; they catch flies. Hawks fly through. (Not an original thought, but based on the Spanish proverb "Laws, like the spider's webs, catch the flies and let the hawk go free.")
Fred
si
KP
fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
From: Will Beback The purpose of Wikipedia is to create articles full of content, not full of external links. I'd argue that the article on Michael Moore does not require a link to his website, nor does any article require having any external link. External links are a convenience to readers, but aren't part of the goal of the encyclopedia. W. _______________________________________________
A prominent person, popular with most of our users, can harass an editor who takes a political position most of don't like, on his website. If we do anything about it, other than ask him to quit, we would make ourselves a laughing stock.
Policies are like spiderwebs; they catch flies. Hawks fly through. (Not an original thought, but based on the Spanish proverb "Laws, like the spider's webs, catch the flies and let the hawk go free.")
I agree. Sometimes trolling is less damaging than setting out a drift-net. Not all species will bite on the troll line, but a drift-net too easily captures endangered species as a by-catch. The endangered species often have no market value, so their corpses are just thrown back. This compounds the destructiveness with wastefulness.
Ec
Fred Bauder evidently wrote:
A prominent person, popular with most of our users, can harass an editor who takes a political position most of don't like, on his website. If we do anything about it, other than ask him to quit, we would make ourselves a laughing stock.
Right. In particular, if we went out of our way to suppress links to the man's own website, we would make ourselves a laughingstock.
I must have missed something. Are there people seriously advocating that [[Michael Moore]] cannot contain a link to michaelmoore.com? If so, I'd say this proves beyond doubt that the policy-that-can't-be-called-BADSITES really is unworkable, that the bizarre repercussions which some have predicted are not only realistically possible, but have already happened.
On 14/10/2007, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
I must have missed something. Are there people seriously advocating that [[Michael Moore]] cannot contain a link to michaelmoore.com? If so, I'd say this proves beyond doubt that the policy-that-can't-be-called-BADSITES really is unworkable, that the bizarre repercussions which some have predicted are not only realistically possible, but have already happened.
They have seriously tried to remove the link from the article as containing a personal attack on a Wikipedia editor (which it arguably did) and edit-warred to keep it off, yes.
- d.