I think anyone would be justified in removing the link. The links spoils it as a source. Coming at it from another angle, why are we providing a platform for Brandt's soapboxing? He's got Hyde Park.

Fred

-----Original Message----- From: John Lee [mailto:johnleemk@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:50 AM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Is Slate an attack site?

On 10/11/07, fredbaud@waterwiki.info fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:

The problem is that the link to the speculations about SlimVirgin, seem simply added as an afterthought. Kinda of like spitting in soup right before you serve it. The link really doesn't add anything to the discussion about Google. I think the information could be found in a source that is not spoiled in that way.

So let's say that I cite this in an article about Google's privacy issues. What is the correct course of action for another editor?

A. Remove the link without replacing it; B. Remove the link but only after replacing it with an equivalent source; C. Leaving it alone but requesting a better source on the talk;

Of course, you are by no means restricted to these options. And this is not exactly a vague and unlikely hypothesis; Slate is an eminently reputable and reliable source by our guidelines, and the piece covers an encyclopedic issue.

Johnleemk _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l