On 17 Oct 2007 at 5:29, 23:39:50 -0400 wrote:

When two groups A and B are locked in prolonged, internecine argument, one great way of discovering which is the more reasonable (and therefore probably more accurate in its portrayal of the debate) is to check their respective websites. If A's website, down underneath its point-by-point repudiation of everything B stands for, says something like, "but for an opposing viewpoint, see http://www.B.org", and if B's website, on the other hand, steadfastly refuses to acknowledge A's, it's a safe bet that A has the moral high ground.

Yes, that agrees with my own philosophy. On my own personal Web sites, I'm constantly linking to things I totally disagree with, just to give access to a wide range of views. And a while back, when comic book artist/writer [[John Byrne]] was feuding with Wikipedia over his bio, I noted that his own Web forum had declared itself a "Wikipedia-free zone" and banned all links to Wikipedia, and I considered this to be giving Wikipedia a clear moral high ground there. I'm distressed to see Wikipedia yielding this high ground where other critics' sites are concerned.